Federal And State Lawmakers Aim To End Union Misuse Of Taxpayer Funds

Forbes

09-04-2025

Texas Capitol in downtown Austin
U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Ben Cline (R-Va.) reintroduced legislation Monday, April 7, that would bar federal government workers from engaging in the practice of 'official time.' 'Official time,' explains a release put out by Senator Lee's office, 'is paid time off for federal employees to engage in union-related work, bargain unit employees, and engage in activities that advance the cause of a union in lieu of actually working.'
'Official time' didn't exist until 1978, when passage of the Civil Service Reform Act created it. This practice, notes Lee's release, 'allows federal employees to use work hours for union-related activities and to deal with cases before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).' Senator Lee's release contends that American taxpayers 'should not be obligated to pay federal employees to engage in union activities,' added the release from Lee's office, which references official estimates for the taxpayer cost of official time:
'In 2016, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reported that federal employees spent 3.6 million hours performing union-related business at a cost of $177.2 million,' Senator Lee's release noted. 'Under the Trump Administration, the amount of hours used on official time fell to 2.6 million hours, at a cost of $134.9 million. Today, however, there is no unified reporting requirement for agencies' whose employees use official time. As a result, 2019 is the last year of available data on the use of official time. Because federal law provides so few guard rails on the use of official time, federal employees are routinely able to abuse the process and to engage in overtly political activities during work hours, or fail to do their job at all.'
Union officials and other proponents of 'official time' for government employees describe it as an important worker protection. Testifying before the U.S. House Oversight subcommittee hearing, Darrell West, vice president at the Brookings Institute, claimed that prohibiting 'official time' for federal workers 'would weaken labor-management relations in the federal government, reduce the ability of government employees to air their concerns with management, and undermine agency performance.'
'Like every other American, it is important that federal employees have the right to express their viewpoints and petition government for a redress of grievances,' West added. What 'official time' proponents present as a vital worker safeguard, critics view as an expensive entitlement unknown to most Americans. While the vast majority of private sector workers are not members of a union, the small share of private sector workers who are unionized (5.9% of all private sector employees according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) do not have a statutory right to 'official time' privileges like federal employees.
The reintroduction of Senator Lee's bill to end 'official time' follows the Trump administration's decisions to send a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to all federal departments and agencies on February 27, informing them that when it comes to 'official time' they need to 'monitor its use to see that it is used efficiently.' What's more, that OPM memo also ordered departments and agencies to resume submission of annual reports to OPM on 'official time' authorization.
OPM had previously published annual reports on the use of official time until the Biden administration suspended it in 2021. According to estimates from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, there are '700 workers in the federal government who never worked for taxpayers thanks to official time.'
'The Biden administration, which was aggressively pro-union, announced in March 2023 that the number of federal employees in unions had grown by 20% under its watch,' CEI added. 'The amount of official time used almost certainly increased with this growth in the workforce.'
While Senator Lee and Representative Cline make the case for their bill, the No Union Time on the Taxpayer's Dime Act, state lawmakers are also pursuing reforms that seek to end union misuse of taxpayer resources. In Texas, for example, members of the state House and Senate have filed legislation that would prohibit state payroll systems from being used to automatically deduct union dues.
'Banning state subsidiaries from the collection of union dues is long overdue legislation,' said Representative Carl Tepper (R-Lubbock), who filed 'paycheck protection' legislation in the House. Senator Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound) filed the Senate version.
'Our state and local governments should not be in the business of making payroll deductions on behalf of unions; especially when those unions so often advocate against the interests of the public,' Tepper added. 'I look forward to working with Senator Tan Parker to make this bill law.'
'It's time for Texas to stop acting as a debt collector for radical left-wing government unions,' said Freedom Foundation CEO Aaron Withe. 'For too long, taxpayers have been forced to finance the collection of union dues, often without their consent,' Withe added, noting that his organization 'proudly supports this legislation, which will help protect taxpayer dollars and restore the proper role of government.'
The 'paycheck protection' legislation filed by Senator Parker and Representative Tepper isn't the only reform now pending in the Texas Legislature that seeks to end what many view as an improper use of taxpayer dollars. That goal is also the impetus behind Senate Bill 19, legislation that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for contract lobbyists.
'In 2023, local governments spent as much as $98.6 million to hire contract lobbyists—an increase from $75 million in 2021,' explains James Quintero and John Bonura at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). TPPF points out other strong arguments in favor of SB 19, noting that local governments across the state that hire contract lobbyists with taxpayer resources 'oftentimes do so for the purpose of securing higher taxes, more spending, and greater regulatory authority.'
SB 19, introduced by Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), passed out of the Texas Senate in March and is now awaiting consideration in the Texas House. Though this same proposal has passed out of the Senate in previous sessions only to die in the Texas House, a different fate is expected this year. That's because Middleton's reform has the backing of Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock).
'This practice involves government lobbying government for more government, and according to a recent poll, eight in ten Texans oppose using tax dollars to hire lobbyists,' Senator Middleton said in a recent interview, adding that before adjourning this session, he and his colleagues in the Texas Legislature 'must once and for all prohibit local governments from using our tax dollars to support higher taxes, more spending, and greater government control in our lives.'
Senator Lee and Senator Middleton are proposing different reforms at different levels of government. Yet both Lee and Middleton are seeking end what they see as not only a misallocation of taxpayer dollars, but the use of taxpayer resources to advocate against taxpayer interests.