Ogden, UTAH — A contentious bill aimed at restricting public labor unions’ ability to engage in collective bargaining passed the Utah House of Representatives on Monday, despite strong opposition from both Democrats and several Republicans.
House Bill 267 (H.B. 267) would prohibit public employers, such as school districts and government agencies, from entering into collective bargaining agreements with their employees. The legislation also seeks to prevent public funds from supporting union activities and would bar union members from receiving state retirement benefits.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R-South Jordan), argues that collective bargaining gives too much influence to unions, which represent only a minority of workers in certain sectors. Teuscher emphasized that while unions would still be able to advocate for their members, they would no longer have the authority to negotiate benefits or salaries on behalf of public employees.
“In a lot of our government agencies that do collective bargaining today, that union voice is made up of a far minority of the employment base,” Teuscher said. “There are literally thousands of voices across our state that don’t get heard as part of that process.”
Despite Teuscher’s argument, the bill faced opposition from both sides of the political aisle. In a divided House vote, the bill passed 42-32, with some Republicans joining Democrats in voicing concerns over the proposal.
Rep. Doug Welton (R-Provo), a public school teacher, expressed reservations about the bill, arguing that it did not adequately address the issues facing educators. While he agreed with the principle that public funds should not be used to support union activities, he remained unconvinced that the bill would effectively represent all teachers.
“I am still unsure that this really answers that all teachers are being represented,” Welton said, noting that collective bargaining is already optional in Utah.
On the other side, Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost (D-Salt Lake City) strongly criticized the bill, labeling it “anti-worker, anti-family, and anti-Utah values.” She argued that the legislation would create a climate of fear and silence in workplaces, stripping employees of their ability to collectively advocate for better working conditions.
“We are taking away their ability to advocate in a collective and organized manner,” Dailey-Provost said. “I just can’t understand why we as a legislature need to marshal our considerable might to intentionally create a culture of fear.”
Following the bill’s passage, the Utah House Democratic Caucus released a statement condemning the legislation, stating that it contradicts Utah’s commitment to supporting public educators, safety officers, and service employees. The caucus argued that removing unions’ ability to negotiate fair compensation would jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of working families across the state.
The Utah Education Association (UEA), which represents teachers across the state, also expressed disappointment in the bill’s advancement. In a statement, the UEA called the bill a “dangerous precedent” that undermines democracy and the rights of public employees to organize. The association warned that the bill could ultimately harm public education and the quality of services provided to Utahns.
“We believe HB 267 represents a dangerous precedent that undermines the principles of democracy and the rights of public employees to organize and advocate for their professions,” said UEA representatives. The association also cited a petition against the bill that had gathered nearly 13,000 signatures in just one week.
As the bill moves forward, it will now be reviewed by the Senate committee before being considered for a full Senate vote. If it passes the Senate, it will be sent to Governor Spencer Cox for final approval. If signed into law, the legislation would significantly reshape the role of public unions in Utah, marking a significant shift in labor relations within the state.
Supporters of the bill maintain that it will ensure broader representation for public employees, while opponents argue that it weakens protections for workers and undermines the state’s commitment to fair compensation and working conditions for public servants.