In anticipation of a vote on what has turned out to be one of the most controversial bills of the 2025 legislative session hundreds of people filled the halls of the Capitol on Friday.
“Solidarity forever, solidarity forever, solidarity forever, the union makes us strong,” sang a crowd of union members and public workers gathered outside the Senate gallery, as they voiced their opposition to a bill on public labor unions.
Lawmakers introduced changes to HB267, Public Sector Labor Union Amendments, on Friday, removing the prohibition on public sector collective bargaining and instead requiring unions to receive a majority of employee support to participate in collective bargaining. The substitute version of the bill was released just before Senate floor time on Friday.
It was expected that the bill would be voted on in the Senate shortly after the changes were released, but the bill’s floor sponsor Kirk Cullimore, R-Draper paused the vote on the bill until next week, giving lawmakers and stakeholders more time to read through and understand the changes.
Cullimore worked with the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, to make changes to the bill.
Because of the changes, if the bill passes through the Senate it will have to return to the House for a final vote.
These changes came after feedback from many public union members who gathered to speak out against the bill during both Senate and House committee meetings.
Even though changes have been made, there are still those in opposition to the bill.
“Any version of House Bill 267 is just unfortunate,” said Kelly Yeates, a high school teacher in Park City and a member of the Utah Education Association.
What changes were made to HB267?
The original text of HB267 prohibited public sector collective bargaining completely. Teuscher explained that collective bargaining is when an employer and a union come together to negotiate a contract for employees.
“In most of those collective bargaining agreements, it spells out specifically that the union representation is the sole collective bargaining agent, meaning that the public employer is not able to negotiate with anyone else, other than union representatives,” said Teuscher.
Under this new substitute if a labor organization has a majority of employees vote for them then they can engage in collective bargaining.
If the bill is passed, starting in 2026, a group of employees who want to engage in collective bargaining can can hold a secret ballot election to contract with a collective bargaining representative. The election has to be done through a third party.
An organization needs a majority of all employees, not just union members, to vote in favor of them in order to engage in collective bargaining. In order for the organization to continue collective bargaining, an election needs to be held every five years.
“One of the reasons why I’ve been supportive, it’s more reflective of that body,” said Sen. Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork. “If you’re going to have collective bargaining or have an ability to bargain on behalf of a group, you need to represent half of that group. So to me, it’s better process.”
A collective bargaining representative that does not receive a majority vote would have to wait 12 months before holding another election through a third party.
Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, said that even with the changes, her caucus is still opposed to the bill.
Cullimore said he motioned to have the bill circled, which pushes voting back, because the changes were released so soon before the reading and they wanted enough time to received feedback from all the stakeholders.
The senator said he has already heard from a few unions and they are all neutral on the changes, including the Fraternal Order of Police, Utah Public Employees Association and six local education unions.
Public employees and unions members gathered at the Capitol in opposition to HB267
Before the changes to the bill were released, it was expected that the Senate would vote on the bill Friday morning. In anticipation of that vote, many public workers and union members gathered in the Capitol to express their opposition to HB267.
As the crowd was gathering, multiple union members said they had not yet had the chance to read the changes made to the bill.
The crowd filled up the area outside the Senate gallery, and included teachers, firefighters and other public workers.
“I feel a little bit bad that they showed up and didn’t, weren’t here for any fireworks,” Cullimore said. “I think this will also give time for their unions to message to them where we’re actually at at this point. So maybe it’ll bring down the temperature a little bit.”
Many of the union members said they appreciate the changes being made but still don’t agree with the bill.
“I think the substitutions are an attempt to appease people, but the bill itself is unnecessary and does not solve any of the problems that our state is facing. It doesn’t help children, it doesn’t help teachers, it hurts our community,” Yeates said.
After the bill had been circled, the Utah Education Association held an afternoon press conference to address HB267 as well as the substitution made.
“The second substitution for HB267 was made public just this morning, and while we are still reviewing the details, one thing is already clear, the pressure worked,” said UEA President Renee Pinkney. “The lawmakers heard us, they heard you. And while this fight is not over, it’s a testament to what’s possible when public workers stand in solidarity.”
Allen Miller, a technology specialist in Davis School District, said he believes that not having collective bargaining would limit his voice. He said when employees are able to come together with one voice it allows the highest priorities to be addressed.
“I’m grateful for that change, but I’m hoping that they will actually look at Senator Hinkins bill with the Labor Relations Board, which would actually be a better fit for Utah and public employees,” Miller said.
He was referencing SB168, from Sen. David P. Hinkins, R-Orangeville, that conflicts with HB267 and enforces collective bargaining.
“We know that change doesn’t happen because of a few voices on these steps. It happens because of thousands demanding action. It happens when educators, parents and working people come together, united in purpose and refuse to back down. That’s exactly what we’ve seen here, union members across industries stood together, and it made a difference,” Pinkney said.
Teuscher made an appropriations request for the bill
On Thursday, Teuscher went in front of the General Government Appropriations subcommittee with a request for appropriations, to receive money for the teacher liability insurance portion of HB267.
The bill would provide an option of professional liability insurance for teachers to opt into, without having to go through a union or other organization. The appropriations request was for part of this insurance policy to be paid for by the state.
“No teacher in our state should feel afraid to teach in the classroom, so that’s why were providing this opt in,” Teuscher said.
The liability insurance program would be offered through the Department of Risk Management which went to the market to find a policy to offer to Utah’s teachers. There would be five levels of insurance teachers could choose from, ranging $75 to $170 a year.
“We want teachers, we want to attract them to the field so we want to make this as low barrier as possible, so that they feel safe in the classrooms and are able to teach their kids,” Teuscher said.
This liability insurance would cover teachers going through licensing disputes or issues with their employer.
The appropriations request is for $795,000, but the state can decide how much of the policies they want to cover based on how many teachers opt into the program.
What else does HB267 do?
HB267 only applies to public sector labor unions and has nothing to do with private sector unions.
The bill also does more than regulate collective bargaining and provide liability insurance for teachers.
According to Teuscher, the bill would also safeguard public resources by prohibiting employees from receiving paid leave for union activities.
It also requires unions to pay to use spaces that other groups have to pay for, and to report annually to the labor commission the number of members they have and the money they spend.
If passed, the bill would go into effect on July 1.