Union payroll deductions banned

Summary#

HB 178, “Public unions-transparency and dues withdrawal limitations,” was enrolled as Act 35 but vetoed by the governor, so it is not law. It would create a new section of Wyoming’s labor law and amend existing definitions and penalties; its stated goal is not provided beyond the act’s subject. The bill text supplied does not include the full current laws, so I could not verify how much of its wording would be new.

• Public employers could not use or authorize public funds or facilities to support or raise funds by deducting dues, fees, assessments, fines, or contributions from a public employee’s pay for listed labor organizations, political groups, political committees, or candidates.
• A person who violated the new rule would commit a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, up to six months in county jail, or both.
• The bill defines “public employer” to include the state, local governments, and their agencies or instrumentalities, but excludes public safety agencies and certain corporate authorities.
• It preserves direct payments by employees to labor organizations or associated political funds, and says labor organizations would not have to disclose members’ names or identifying information.
• It preserves specified firefighters’ collective-bargaining rights, a federal transit funding safeguard, and contracts or agreements made before the bill’s effective date. It would have taken effect January 1, 2027.

What it means for you#

• Public employees: If the bill had taken effect, their employers could not have deducted the listed payments from pay on behalf of the covered organizations or political recipients. Employees could still pay dues or other charges directly. The text does not say whether a payroll deduction is allowed in any particular situation beyond the stated limits and exceptions.
• Public employers and their staff or representatives: They would have been barred from using or authorizing public funds or facilities for the specified deductions. A person who violated the rule could face the stated criminal penalty.
• Labor organizations and political recipients: They could not receive covered payments through the prohibited public-payroll deductions. The bill does not bar direct employee payments or require disclosure of union members’ identities.
• Firefighters and transit agencies: The bill says it would not impair firefighters’ specified bargaining rights, including bargaining over wage deductions, or require an action that violates federal transit law or jeopardizes eligibility for federal transit funding.
• Everyone else: The bill does not create a general ban on unions, require employees to join one, or establish a new disclosure system. The bill was vetoed, so it does not currently make these changes.

Money#

No cost information is available in the supplied material.

• The bill sets no appropriation, fee, or new benefit.
• It would restrict certain uses of public funds and facilities, but the material gives no estimate of any public-sector savings, administrative costs, or enforcement costs.

What is unclear#

• The full current versions of the amended laws were not supplied, so the changes compared with current law cannot be fully checked.
• The bill does not define key phrases such as “support or fundraise by,” or explain how the rule applies to particular payroll arrangements.
• It does not set out how suspected violations would be investigated or who would enforce the new rule.
• The supplied text does not define the excluded public safety agencies or corporate authorities; their referenced definitions were not supplied.
• The bill was vetoed. No information is provided here about any later action on the veto.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that public payroll systems and facilities should not be used to collect payments for unions or political recipients.
• The bill leaves employees free to pay organizations directly, while preserving specified firefighters’ bargaining rights and protections tied to federal transit funding.
• It also protects existing contracts and does not require labor organizations to disclose member identities.

Case against#

• One concern is that the rule would reach several kinds of payments and recipients, while leaving important terms and the treatment of specific payroll arrangements unclear.
• A person could face criminal penalties, but the bill does not spell out an investigation or enforcement process.
• The exceptions and protection for earlier agreements could make the rule apply differently across employers and workers.
• The bill’s title refers to transparency, but its text does not require unions to disclose information about members or establish another transparency process.