Taxpayers Are Subsidizing Unions, and States Should Put a Stop to It
Key Findings
- The unionization rate for state government employees is 29 percent and 39 percent of local government employees are in a union.
- Union contracts often have clauses allowing employees to work on union business while still receiving their taxpayer-funded salary.
- Union time at taxpayer expense likely costs hundreds of millions of dollars each year, but the full scope is unknown.
- Taxpayer-funded union time is a subsidy for the billions that unions spend on partisan political activities and contributions.
Union membership rates have been declining for decades and are currently at the lowest point on record.1 In the private sector, market forces have led to a steep drop in the unionization rate, which stands at just six percent.2 However, in government employment, the union membership rate has remained steadily high.3 In the public sector, 29 percent of state government employees and 39 percent of local government employees are in a union.4 Government employees account for just 14 percent of the workforce, yet half of all union members are government employees.5-6 Overall, 34 percent of state and local government employees are members of a union, and 37 percent are in positions covered by a collective bargaining agreement.7
Policies related to government unions are important to consider because unions try to exert control over taxpayer-funded government agencies in more ways than one. Public-sector unions are partisan actors that organize on behalf of candidates and spend millions on political contributions.8 Because the candidates that unions help to elect are tasked with running government agencies, government unions essentially have the power to choose their own employer and are represented on both sides of the bargaining table.
For example, the governor of Pennsylvania received nearly $5.5 million from public-sector unions during the 2022 election cycle.9 One year later, the public-sector unions that supported his campaign secured 22 percent raises and favorable contract terms in collective bargaining agreements with his administration.10 This will end up costing taxpayers in Pennsylvania an additional $3 billion.11 The legislature did not get a say in these negotiations, but is forced to fund the increased salaries.12
Unions also lobby for new public programs or policies that will increase government staffing in addition to raises, bonuses, and enhanced benefits.13 This, in turn, increases membership and union revenue and enhances a union’s power to influence elected representatives even more.
Not only do public-sector unions exert outsized influence over government operations, but their existence is heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Union contracts often have clauses that allow employees to work on union business while receiving their taxpayer-funded salaries.14 At the federal level, this practice is known as official time, whereas at the state and local level it may be referred to as release time, union time, association business leave, or service time.15 In some cases, a government employee will work for the union full time in a leadership role, such as president, but still remain on the payroll as a government employee.16
Taxpayer-funded union time also occurs when employees are allowed to conduct union business, such as processing grievances, attending conventions or conferences, and lobbying lawmakers for hours or days at a time without taking leave, even though they are not doing their taxpayer-funded job during those times.17 These hours and days spent at conferences or attending union meetings are not in service of the public, yet taxpayers are footing the bill.
Taxpayers are likely paying hundreds of millions of dollars each year for union business
The full scope of how much taxpayers are subsidizing union activities is difficult to assess. State and local governments are not typically required to track how many hours or dollars are spent on union time.18 While some contracts specify a certain number of hours that can be spent on union business, others stipulate that “reasonable time” should be granted.19
Taxpayer-funded union time may also be part of a side agreement that is not made public, rather than a part of a contract or collective bargaining agreement.20 Even when the agreement shows a specific number of allowable hours, it is unclear how much time a union is actually using or how much it is costing taxpayers. In 2017, a review of 231 union contracts with state and local governments found that 72 percent included taxpayer-funded union time.21 Another review of taxpayer-funded union time across all 50 states showed that only 25 percent of jurisdictions that were asked to provide records of release time were able to do so.22
The federal government does track the hours and cost of taxpayer-funded union time for federal employee unions. As of 2019, which is the last report available, $135 million of taxpayer money is spent annually for 2.6 million hours of union time.23 In 2019, there were 1.3 million federal employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement.24 There are currently 6.6 million state and local government employees represented by a bargaining unit nationwide—three times as many as in the federal government.25 If the per-employee cost of union time were the same between federal unions and state and local unions, this time would cost taxpayers $685 million annually.26
While calculating the full cost of taxpayer-funded union time is impossible, it likely costs hundreds of millions of dollars across all states and localities.
An analysis of 10 contracts in Miami-Dade County shows more than 42,000 hours of taxpayer-funded union time, plus at least 25 employees performing union duties full time.27-28 Overall, these 10 contracts give employees working for the union, not the taxpayer, more than 11,860 days of salary and benefits each year.29 In Tampa, taxpayers are on the hook for more than 10,000 hours of union business across five union contracts.30-31
In Iowa, one collective bargaining agreement with the city of Des Moines allows 660 hours of union business while receiving taxpayer-funded salaries and grants.32 The contract also allows unlimited paid leave to lobby the executive or legislative branch of government.33
Union time is a common feature of collective bargaining agreements in school districts in Indiana.34 For example, the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation pays for 45 days of union activity, plus half of the union president’s salary and benefits while he or she is working full time for the union instead of in a classroom.35 Indianapolis public school teachers’ agreement allows 168 hours per year of paid time specifically for lobbying the legislature.36
A contract for employees of the state of Kansas allows 1,200 hours of union time per year, plus an additional 90 minutes each week for each union steward to investigate and process employee grievances.37 A contract for employees of the city of Wichita allows 3,510 hours of union time, plus an additional 300 hours for contract negotiations.38
Salt Lake City, Utah lists three collective bargaining agreements for city employees, which collectively allow for more than 3,200 hours of paid union time.39
Oklahoma City Public Schools pay for 105 days of union time, the equivalent of half of a school year.40
Taxpayers are subsidizing partisan political activity
Union membership is politically diverse, with 60 percent of union members identifying as conservative or moderate.41 However, unions remain partisan political actors, overwhelmingly supporting the Democratic party and radical leftist positions.42 Overall, 99 percent of union contributions to political candidates and causes go to Democrats.43
In the last election cycle, the four largest public-sector unions spent more than $700 million on political activities, $540 million of which came from member dues.44 An overwhelming 95 percent of these contributions were to Democratic candidates and groups.45 These same four unions only spent 20 percent of their revenue on member representation activities.46 The National Education Association, which is the largest teachers’ union, spent $183 million on political contributions in 2021, compared to just $32 million on member representation.47
The top four public-sector unions have all endorsed Kamala Harris for president.48-51 The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) advocates for “Medicare for All,” free community college, radical climate initiatives, and other leftist policies that, in addition to costing taxpayers trillions, would likely lead to increased demand for government employees, and therefore higher union membership and dues for AFSCME.52-53 The American Federation of Teachers vigorously opposes and lobbies against school choice policies, even though school choice is supported by 76 percent of parents and 40 percent of public school teachers.54-55 Additionally, school choice has been demonstrated to improve test scores, academic attainment, school safety, and school diversity.56
Some jurisdictions have no restrictions on the use of taxpayer-funded union time, and employees engage in political organizing and lobbying while on the clock.57 For example, a law in Illinois explicitly requires school districts to give teachers’ unions 10 days off for federal lobbying at taxpayer expense.58 Even if union time is restricted to non-political activities such as investigating grievances, any time taxpayers are funding union business, they are involuntarily subsidizing the billions of dollars that unions spend on political contributions and organizing. If fewer dues must be allocated for matters like union representation and negotiating, more dues can be funneled into political action that members may not support and is often in direct opposition to the priorities of taxpayers.
States should ban taxpayer-funded union business
Taxpayers should not have to subsidize union business, especially considering the role that unions play in partisan politics. States should prohibit release time from being included in state and local employee union contracts and require government employees to take personal leave or unpaid leave when conducting union business. Some collective bargaining agreements do stipulate that union business must be conducted outside of working hours and that employees released for union duties are on unpaid status.59 This demonstrates that unions are capable of operating without relying on taxpayers’ unwitting contributions to their business.
In 2022, Arizona banned taxpayer-funded union time.60 This means that current or future contracts between government entities and public employees cannot provide paid leave or any form of compensation for union activities.61 This will save millions of taxpayer dollars.62 In 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the practice of taxpayer-funded union time was unconstitutional due to the gifts clause, which in Arizona, prohibits government entities from giving donations, gifts, or grants to private individuals or groups.63 The court ruled that taxpayer-funded time off specifically for union business functioned as a gift to the union.64 Most states have a similar clause in their constitutions prohibiting gifts from the government to private organizations or individuals, which could render release time unconstitutional.65 The Arizona Supreme Court further noted that taxpayer-funded union time provided no benefit to the government or taxpayers.6
States should also ensure that union employees are not receiving any benefits or time counted toward retirement benefits while they work full time for the union, even if they are in unpaid status or the union is reimbursing the government for the salary paid. Someone who has worked for decades as a union president instead of serving the public should not gain years of seniority and have access to the extremely generous retirement benefits funded by taxpayers for government employees.
The Bottom Line: States should prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for union business.
Taxpayer money should be used to provide services to the public in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible. Wages and benefits for government employees consume a large portion of state and local budgets.67 When these generous salaries are paid to employees who are not serving the public or working for the government, but instead are working on behalf of a union, taxpayers are not getting what they paid for.
Further, unions are partisan political actors that often lobby for changes to public policy that their own members, much less the public, do not support. Taxpayer-funded union business serves no public interest but subsidizes radical leftist politics at the expense of providing efficient and fiscally responsible government services.
REFERENCES
1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union members—2023,” U.S. Department of Labor (2024), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment by industry,” U.S. Department of Labor (2024), https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-levels-by-industry.htm.
6. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union members—2023,” U.S. Department of Labor (2024), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
7. Ibid.
8. Carl Smith, “Political spending by public-sector unions is deep blue,” Governing (2023), https://www.governing.com/politics/political-spending-by-public-sector-unions-is-deep-blue.
9. Andrew Holman, “Gov. Shapiro should represent workers over powerful campaign donors,” Commonwealth Foundation (2023), https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/commentary/2023/03/28/gov-shapiro-campaign-donors/.
10. Dennis Owens and George Stockburger, “Transparency questioned after Pennsylvania negotiates new union contracts,” WHTM (2023), https://www.abc27.com/pennsylvania-politics/transparency-questioned-after-pennsylvania-negotiates-new-union-contracts/.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Geoffrey Lawrence et al., “How government unions affect state and local finances: An empirical 50 state review,” Heritage Foundation (2016), https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/how-government-unions-affect-state-and-local-finances-empirical-50-state.
14. Liesel Crocker, “Why states should require annual union recertification,” Foundation for Government Accountability (2024), https://thefga.org/research/why-states-should-require-annual-union-recertification/.
15. Mark Pulliam, “Union time on the taxpayer dime,” Law & Liberty (2024), https://lawliberty.org/union-time-on-the-taxpayer-dime/.
16. Ibid.
17. Mark Flatten, “Money for nothing: Taxpayer funded release time gives government employee unions no work and all pay,” Goldwater Institute (2020), https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/money-for-nothing/.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21.Ben Weingarten, “To unions, organizing time is fine when it’s on the taxpayers’ dime,” Real Clear Investigations (2023), https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/06/27/to_unions_organizing_time_is_fine_when_its_on_the_taxpayers_dime_942997.html.
22. Mark Flatten, “Money for nothing: Taxpayer funded release time gives government employee unions no work and all pay,” Goldwater Institute (2020), https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/money-for-nothing/.
23. Office of Personnel Management, “Taxpayer-funded union time usage in the federal government,” U.S. Office of Personnel Management (2020), https://www.opm.gov/about-us/reports-publications/agency-reports/taxpayer-funded-union-time-fy-2019.pdf.
24. Ibid.
25.Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union members—2023,” U.S. Department of Labor (2024), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.
26. Author’s calculations.
27. Miami-Dade County Department of Human Resources, “Collective bargaining agreements,” Miami-Dade County (2024), https://www.miamidade.gov/global/service.page?Mduid_service=ser1546898977023995.
28. Miami-Dade County Public Schools, “Contract between the Miami-Dade Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade,” Miami Dade County (2020), https://mdcdhr.entest.org/labor/UTD%202020-2023%20CLEAN%20VERSION.pdf.
29. Ibid.
30. Tampa Department of Human Resources, “Human resources information resources,” City of Tampa (2024), https://www.tampa.gov/human-resources/info.
31. Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association, “Instructional contract 2023-2026,” Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association (2024), https://hillsboroughcta.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Revised-Instructional-Contract-2023-2026-FINAL.pdf.
32. City of Des Moines Human Resources Department, “Contracts and agreements,” City of Des Moines (2024), https://www.dsm.city/departments/human_resources/contracts_and_agreements.php.
33. Ibid.
34. Indiana Gateway, “Collective bargaining contract uploads report,” State of Indiana (2024), https://gateway.ifionline.org/report_builder/Default3a.aspx?rpttype=collBargain&rpt=contract_uploads&rptName=Collective%20Bargaining%20Contract%20Uploads.
35. Indiana Gateway, “Collective bargaining agreement by and between the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation and the Evansville Teachers Association,” State of Indiana (2024), https://gateway.ifionline.org/public_download/cbr_contract_uploads/2023/10048_1522_2023_20231114084558216.pdf.
36. Indiana Gateway, “Agreement between the Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis and the Indianapolis Education Association,” State of Indiana (2024), https://gateway.ifionline.org/public_download/cbr_contract_uploads/2023/10173_2412_2023_20231117153015703.pdf.
37. State of Kansas, “Memorandum of agreement between the State of Kansas and the Kansas Organization of State Employees,” State of Kansas (2010), https://www.doc.ks.gov/employment/Unions/kose-moa/view.
38. City of Wichita, “Memorandum of agreement by and between the City of Wichita, Kansas and Service Employees International Union Local 513 AFL-CIO, CLC,” City of Wichita (2021), https://www.wichita.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9193/2021-to-2024-SEIU-Contract—EFF-December-25-2021-through-December-20-2024-PDF.
39. Salt Lake City Human Resources, “Labor agreements,” Salt Lake City (2024), https://www.slc.gov/hr/policies-and-administration/labor-agreements/.
40. Oklahoma City Public Schools, “Collective bargaining agreement,” Oklahoma City Public Schools (2024), https://www.okcps.org/Page/7307.
41.Liesel Crocker, “Why states should require annual union recertification,” Foundation for Government Accountability (2024), https://thefga.org/research/why-states-should-require-annual-union-recertification/.
42. Ibid.
43. bid.
44. Carl Smith, “Political spending by public-sector unions is deep blue,” Governing (2023), https://www.governing.com/politics/political-spending-by-public-sector-unions-is-deep-blue.
45. Liesel Crocker, “Why states should require annual union recertification,” Foundation for Government Accountability (2024), https://thefga.org/research/why-states-should-require-annual-union-recertification/.
46. Ibid.
47. bid.
48. NEA Today, “NEA thanks President Biden, endorses Vice President Kamala Harris in general election,” National Educators Association (2024), https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/nea-thanks-president-biden-endorses-vice-president-kamala-harris-general-election.
49. Service Employees International Union, “SEIU’s Verrett: SEIU is ALL IN for Kamala Harris, a leader who will fight for workers and beat Donald Trump,” Service Employees International Union (2024), https://seiu.org/2024/07/seius-verrett-seiu-is-all-in-for-kamala-harris-a-leader-who-will-fight-for-workers-and-beat-donald-trump.
50. American Federation of Teachers, “AFT votes to endorse Kamala Harris for president,” American Federation of Teachers (2024), https://www.aft.org/news/aft-votes-endorse-kamala-harris-president.
51. Pete Levine, “AFSCME is ‘all in’ for Vice President Kamala Harris,” American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (2024), https://www.afscme.org/blog/afscme-is-all-in-for-vice-president-kamala-harris.
52. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, “Our issues,” American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (2024), https://www.afscme.org/priorities/issues.
53. Peter Sullivan, “New study: Full-scale Medicare-for-All costs $32 trillion over ten years,” The Hill (2019), https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/465894-new-study-full-scale-medicare-for-all-costs-32-trillion-over-10-years/.
54. Morning Consult, “The public, parents, and K-12 education: A national polling report,” Morning Consult (2024), https://edchoice.morningconsultintelligence.com/assets/283042.pdf.
55. Morning Consult, “Teacher and K-12 education: A national poll,” Morning Consult (2024), https://edchoice.morningconsultintelligence.com/assets/288256.pdf.
56. EdChoice, “The 123s of school choice: What the research says about private school choice programs in America,” EdChoice (2023), https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/123s-of-School-Choice-WEB-07-10-23.pdf.
57. Ben Weingarten, “To unions, organizing time is fine when it’s on the taxpayers’ dime,” Real Clear Investigations (2023), https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/06/27/to_unions_organizing_time_is_fine_when_its_on_the_taxpayers_dime_942997.html.
58. David Osborne and Andrew Holman, “The battle for worker freedom: Grading state public sector labor laws,” Commonwealth Institute (2024), https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/50-State-Public-Sector-Labor-Laws-paper.pdf.
59. Thom Reily and Akheil Singla, “Union business leave practices in large U.S. municipalities: An exploratory study,” Public Personnel Management (2017), https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Reilly-and-Singla-Union-Business-Leave-Practices.pdf.
60. Arizona Senate, “Senate bill 1166,” State of Arizona (2022), https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0111.pdf.
61. Gretchen Baldau, “Arizona leads again by banning union release time,” American Legislative Exchange Council (2022), https://alec.org/article/arizona-leads-again-by-banning-union-release-time/.
62. Ibid.
63. Gilmore v. Gallego, 255 Ariz. 169 (App. 2023), https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CV230130PR.pdf.
64. Ibid.
65. Timothy Sandefur, “The origins of the Arizona gift clause,” Regent University Law Review (2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4414137.
66. Gilmore v. Gallego, 255 Ariz. 169 (App. 2023), https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CV230130PR.pdf.
67. Census Bureau, “2023 ASPEP data tables,” U.S. Census Bureau (2023), https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2023/econ/apes/annual-apes.html
