Bill on public sector union lists clears Senate

The Iowa Capitol on Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
The Iowa Senate approved legislation Monday allowing Iowa residents to seek district court action during a public sector union's recertification process.
Senate File 472, which passed in a 32-15 vote, would allow Iowans to petition a district court to order public employers to provide lists of their employees to the state as part of the union bargaining process.
Under the the state's 2017 collective bargaining law, government employers are required to submit a list of their employees to the Employment Appeal Board (EAB) before recertification votes in which workers are asked if they want to continue being represented by their union before the next contract negotiation period. If a list is not submitted to the EAB, the recertification election will not occur, and contract negotiations occur with the existing union representation.
The bill would make failure to submit a list of employees illegal. It would allow Iowa residents to petition a district court for a writ of mandamus compelling the public employer to provide a list to EAB within 10 days of receiving notice of intent to conduct an election from the EAB. The bill limits the timeframe for petitioning the court in these cases to 60 days.
Supporters of the legislation said in earlier meetings the measure was necessary as some public unions were purposefully not submitting lists of employees so existing union representation would retain control over contract negotiations. Sen. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, highlighted the subject as a 'teacher union issue,' claiming that school administrators were choosing not to submit employee lists because of their loyalty to the teachers' union.
During floor debate, Sen. Adrian Dickey, R-Packwood, said statistics from the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing found that from 2020-2023, nearly half of the recertification elections that were called to take place did not occur because employers did not submit lists. He argued the measure would not create any issues for public employers that are abiding by current Iowa law, but would ensure public sector employees' voices are heard through the recertification process.
Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Cedar Rapids, said the bill 'creates an unnecessary financial burden on our school districts, because sometimes they choose not to turn in that list — not because they sympathize with educators or with the union — but because they know that this is a redundant process and it's costing money.'
Donahue said that the EAB recertification process overall was 'unnecessary' and a waste of resources and time for the state, noting that in more than 98%, of cases, public sector workers have voluntarily kept their union representation.
'If we truly care about the efficiency and cutting wasteful spending, the logical solution isn't to add more hurdles, it is to eliminate the entire system of (EAB) recertification,' she said. 'Teachers and public employees already have a choice, and they get to use their voice every single year … by choosing whether or not to join the union, or if they're already a member, whether or not to stay a member. No one forces anybody into a union. They've made that decision already. The current system is nothing more than an expensive and redundant exercise in bureaucracy. So let's start focusing on some real solutions that empower our educators, strengthen our schools and use taxpayer dollars wisely.'
Donahue argued the bill was not supported by any educators, public sector workers or groups representing them, but was a measure pushed by conservative organizations that serves 'no real public benefit other than to try to get school districts to lose their rights to be represented by a union.'
Dickey said the measure was not a 'union-busting bill' but a 'pro-worker bill.'
'The fact is, this legislation has just as much opportunity for a union to be formed as dissolved,' Dickey said. 'For opponents of this legislation to complain that it's too expensive for public sector unions or public sector employers, then all they need to do is follow the law, and no cost will be placed upon them.'
The measure moves to the Iowa House for further consideration.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

24 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns

Advertisement Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. Advertisement 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. Advertisement If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Advertisement Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.

Boston Globe

33 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

GOP can't include limits on Trump lawsuits in megabill, Senate official rules

'Individual district judges -- who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts -- are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairm of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out Trump's agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits. Advertisement The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law -- gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'It was nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored this nation since its founding.' Advertisement Senate Republicans sought to target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders that often block administration policies. Republicans in the House passed a measure in their version of their party's major policy bill to impose limits on federal judges' power to hold people in contempt. The actions came as federal judges have opened inquiries about whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating their orders in cases related to its aggressive deportation efforts. The decision on Sunday is part of a broader review MacDonough is conducting of the Republican-written legislation, which includes large tax cuts and reductions in social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. She ruled that Republicans could include in their bill a divisive measure that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., opposes that provision and has said he intends to introduce an amendment to try to kill the measure. MacDonough also rejected a GOP plan to push some of the costs of nutrition assistance, formerly known as SNAP, onto the states, a ruling that has sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She was expected to work into the week evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order, including whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. Advertisement If Republicans fail to remove the measures she deems out of order, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it. That would effectively kill the legislation since Democrats are solidly opposed. This article originally appeared in

Yahoo

4 hours ago

• Yahoo

Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP's attempt to limit courts' contempt powers

The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans' megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration. The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate's rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) hailed the parliamentarian's decision as a major victory. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement responding to the development. 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold. We successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' he said. The provision, tucked into the thousand-page bill House Republicans passed in May, would have required anyone suing the federal government to pay a bond before a court would be allowed to use its contempt power to enforce injunctions and other rulings. Courts have already ruled more than 190 times against the Trump administration since January. The controversial language received little notice when it came to the floor, and Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) later caused an uproar at a town hall meeting when he admitted he didn't know the provision was in the legislation when he voted for it. 'If enacted, this would have been one of the most brazen power grabs we've seen in American history — an attempt to let a future President Trump ignore court orders with impunity, putting him above the law,' Schumer said Sunday afternoon. 'Donald Trump is not above the law. And thanks to Senate Democrats — including the tireless work of Senator Durbin and the Judiciary Democrats — the courts can still hold him and any president accountable,' Schumer said, referring to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.