The continued protection of the use of taxpayer resources by government unions is baffling

In Idaho, a Senate chairman is holding back a bill that furthers a simple concept. In Wyoming, Gov. Mark Gordon’s recent veto indicates a disappointing belief: that taxpayers should continue to subsidize government unions. Wyoming’s HB 178 would have required state government employees who are union members or members of political organizations to send dues directly to the group to which they belonged instead of having them deducted from their paychecks. Now, the state can continue to keep the money flowing directly to those groups.

In Idaho, a similar bill being held is House Bill 745, which has been approved by the full House of Representatives.

Why does this matter?

Government unions are not neutral actors. They engage in highly political activity that includes arguing for higher benefits for state workers and supporting ideas, causes and candidates that many taxpayers in Wyoming, Idaho and elsewhere oppose. In his veto letter to Speaker of the House Chip Neiman, Gov. Gordon wrote, “How can the state decide what employees (or citizens for that matter) chose [sic] to do with the money they have earned?”

He implies that by not letting employees deduct union or political dues from paychecks, he prohibits them from spending their money on causes they support. That is a false assertion. A plethora of payment options exist in the world. Is the governor not aware of how to write a check, use Venmo or PayPal or wire money – to name a few ways members could pay dues or give donations?

The right question is, why do so many leaders think taxpayers should pay to facilitate government union or political business?

Gov. Gordon argues the cost of deductions is negligible given that the infrastructure is already in place to process them, but that’s not the point. On that issue, no taxpayer funds should be spent on political activity. Secondly, the help to government unions and political groups is huge, as the government is basically transferring millions over time via fast, free-to-the-union technology that it would otherwise have to solicit via mailers, television and radio advertisements and other means. It is no small gift.

In no way did the legislation “frustrate the choice an employee can make with their own money,” as Gov. Gordon wrote. Neither is it “union busting” as the Wyoming Education Association said. It didn’t stop government employees from joining a union or prevent them from paying dues. It simply required members to pay separately, which also ensured full buy-in to the product for which they were paying.

Following the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, unions were prevented from collecting union dues from public employee paychecks without consent. Union membership fell to all-time lows five years later because it became more difficult for unions to convince public employees of their benefit.

While Wyoming was (and is) a “Right to Work” state when the decision was made, meaning public employees didn’t have to worry about dues being deducted without their consent, HB 178 would have ensured that everyone paying dues was committed to the cause.

The legislation also would have required government unions to publish annual reports that included information on dues-paying members and the dollar amount spent on political activity, litigation, vendors and other activities. So, in vetoing the legislation, Gov. Gordon also prevents residents of the Cowboy State from gaining a deeper understanding of how unions spend their time and money.

Transparency is high on the list of every politician’s priorities. They should follow them instead of opting to promote a more opaque government that gives unions a massive gift in the form of easy fundraising.