Why are so many governments serving as the collection agency for unions?

If you believe in limited government, political neutrality, and respect for taxpayers, there is a simple question we should all be asking: Why is the government in the business of collecting money for a private political organization?

Under current Idaho practice, dozens of school districts use taxpayer-funded payroll systems to automatically deduct union dues from teachers’ paychecks and forward that money to the Idaho Education Association (IEA) and ultimately the National Education Association (NEA). In April 2023 alone, $369,000 was deducted from 5,150 Idaho educators’ paychecks in just one month. Roughly $1 million per year flows from Idaho school districts to the NEA.

That should give every taxpayer pause.

A bill being heard in the Idaho legislature this week would change this practice. HB 745, introduced by Senator Ben Toews and Representative Judy Boyle, is simple: it would prohibit public employers from allowing taxpayer funds to promote government unions.

This is not about whether teachers may join a union. They absolutely can. It is not about banning unions. It does not prevent voluntary association. It does not stop teachers from paying dues.

It asks something far more basic: Why should taxpayers provide the billing infrastructure for a private organization — especially one deeply involved in partisan political activity?

The NEA spends millions nationally on political campaigns and lobbying. In Idaho, union-backed political efforts are no secret. Whether you agree or disagree with their positions is beside the point.

The real issue is this: Government payroll systems are funded by taxpayers to administer public education — not to facilitate political fundraising.

When a school district deducts union dues, it is using public infrastructure — public employees, public software systems, public time — to transfer money to a private advocacy group.

Imagine if school districts collected automatic payroll deductions for the Chamber of Commerce. Or the Sierra Club. Or the NRA. Or Planned Parenthood. Idahoans would rightly ask: Why is the government doing this?

Public institutions should not pick sides. Even if payroll deductions are administratively simple, the principle matters.

Government must remain neutral — not serve as the collection agency for organizations engaged in political advocacy.

If unions believe in their mission, they can collect dues directly from members. In fact, the IEA already operates an electronic dues system for precisely that purpose.

So why must taxpayers remain in the middle?

Some districts go beyond merely collecting dues and effectively subsidize union membership directly.

The Boise School District, for example, offers teachers a salary enhancement under the category of “professional activities” that approximates the cost of IEA dues. In other words, public funds offset the cost of union membership.

Let that sink in.

Taxpayers are not only administering dues collection — they are helping cover the cost. No matter your political beliefs, this crosses a line.

Public education funding exists to educate students — not to underwrite membership in private organizations. When government compensation structures are designed in ways that mirror or replace union dues, it raises a basic fairness issue.

Why should a taxpayer who disagrees with a union’s political activity be compelled to subsidize it indirectly?

Why should teachers who choose not to join a union work in a system where public funds effectively support the organization anyway?

Neutrality means neutrality.

Idaho would not be alone in addressing this. Several states have already prohibited government-administered payroll deductions for union dues, recognizing the inherent conflict.

These reforms do not end unions. They do not end collective bargaining. They simply remove the government from the role of financial middleman.

The result? Unions operate like every other private organization: by directly earning and collecting support from their members.

Private organizations — especially those engaged in lobbying and electoral politics — should stand on their own. They should persuade members to support them voluntarily. They should manage their own collections.

Taxpayers should not serve as their administrative backbone.