COMMENTARY: Public unions are not like private unions

When Gov. Spencer Cox signed Utah’s public labor union bill, the state became the third to ban public-sector unions from collective bargaining. This bold move will bring tax savings to Utahns while restoring fairness and accountability in government employment. Other states should take note.

While private-sector unions negotiate with employers who must balance labor costs with business survival, public-sector unions operate differently. Instead of dealing with business owners, they deal with politicians — many of whom receive campaign funding from these unions. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: Unions fund candidates who, once elected, approve generous contracts that benefit unions, not taxpayers. Unlike in the private sector, where a company can go out of business if it overcommits to labor costs, governments simply raise taxes to cover inflated salaries and pensions.

The firefighters’ union in San Antonio illustrates the problem. Despite having some of the best salaries and benefits in Texas, union leaders refused to negotiate a reasonable benefits package for five years, instead working to elect a mayor who would favor their interests. Many firefighters don’t even live in the city, avoiding the tax burden of their own demands. Meanwhile, public safety spending has skyrocketed, draining resources from essential services. Nationwide, public unions follow the same playbook — blocking reform, protecting excessive compensation and using political pressure to maintain power at taxpayers’ expense.

In addition, many states face crippling unfunded pension liabilities thanks to union-backed contracts. In California, New York and Illinois, massive pension shortfalls threaten to force future tax hikes just to cover retirement benefits. The pattern is clear: The more powerful public-sector unions are, the higher the tax burden on working citizens.

Public labor unions create rigid pay structures that prevent schools from rewarding top teachers while simultaneously making it difficult to remove ineffective educators. Rigid salary schedules prioritize seniority over performance, limiting schools’ ability to offer competitive pay to top educators.

Journalist John Stossel highlighted this absurdity by holding up the multi-page bureaucratic process required to remove an underperforming teacher. In places such as New York City, the problem is so bad that failing teachers are placed in “rubber rooms” — paid for doing nothing — because firing them is too difficult.

Meanwhile, student performance stagnates. The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress results confirm that American public schools are failing to improve, with math and reading scores hitting historical lows.

Beyond the financial cost, public unions stifle innovation. Attempts to reform government services, whether in education, transit or public safety, are often blocked by union opposition. Efforts to modernize school models, implement performance pay or introduce more efficient systems are routinely challenged under the guise of “worker protections.” In reality, these unions resist any change that threatens their control, even if it benefits employees, taxpayers and the public.

Ending collective bargaining is a win not only for taxpayers but also for government employees. Without rigid union contracts, individual workers have the freedom to negotiate better salaries and benefits based on their performance and needs.

Early in my career, I applied for a job at a charter school where I was offered a higher salary and a stipend for private health insurance — an option that would have left me with more take-home pay. In the public school system, I had no such choice; union negotiators determined my salary, benefits and retirement plan without considering my individual circumstances.

The structure of public-sector unions often creates misaligned incentives, prioritizing political influence and institutional preservation over flexibility and efficiency. While unions were initially designed to advocate for workers, the collective bargaining system can sometimes lead to excessive spending, inefficiency and resistance to necessary reforms.

Utah has taken a bold step in putting taxpayers first by banning collective bargaining in the public sector. Other states could benefit from similar policies to ensure that government employment remains fair, adaptable and focused on serving the public.

Jon England is an education policy analyst at the Libertas Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.