Latest news with #laborunions
E&E News
7 hours ago
- Business
- E&E News
California officials approve 6 highway projects after enviro-union spat
California transportation officials approved funding for six highway construction projects Thursday that have become a source of tension between labor unions and environmental groups. What happened: The California Transportation Commission signed off on over $600 million in funding for six highway expansion projects ranging from the Bay Area to Los Angeles County, following heated debate between union construction workers and clean transportation groups during public comments. Why it matters: Environmental groups have increasingly organized opposition against highway expansion projects over the last year, arguing that the construction is a waste of taxpayer money that won't solve congestion issues and that the state needs to more aggressively reduce emissions to meet its climate goals. Advertisement That opposition has drawn the ire of construction unions, which say they support building public transit and infrastructure for walking and biking, but that canceling highway projects would cost workers jobs.
Washington Post
a day ago
- Business
- Washington Post
German minimum wage set to rise by about 14% over the next 18 months
BERLIN — Germany's minimum wage is set to rise by about 14% over the next 18 months under an agreement that appears to defuse a potentially divisive issue for the new government . A commission in which employers and labor unions are represented recommended on Friday that the minimum wage rise from its current 12.82 euros ($15) per hour to 13.90 euros at the beginning of 2026 and 14.60 euros a year later.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The board decision that sent the MLB, NFL unions into controversy
Last June, eight members of the board of directors for a licensing group called OneTeam Partners, which is co-owned by the players unions for five major sports leagues, signed a resolution that would have included the member unions in a plan to receive 'profits units.' Those units, like traditional equity, could be turned into cash if the company did well. It was a move that raised alarms within at least one of the unions. Advertisement By late 2024, an official at the National Football League Players Association had repeatedly raised concerns that implementing the plan could mean that labor officials serving on OneTeam's board of directors — including the head of the NFL players union, Lloyd Howell Jr., and the leader of the Major League Baseball players union, Tony Clark — were attempting to make a change that could lead to their own financial gain, potentially at the expense of union members. The resolution, which was obtained by The Athletic, called for any eventual payouts — made through what is known as a senior employee incentive plan (SEIP) — to go to the unions the board members hail from. The resolution also directly acknowledged the possibility that the unions could then grant that money to their board members. 'The explicit goal throughout the process was to financially enrich the individuals who serve on the OTP Board as labor organization representatives,' the NFLPA official wrote to lawyers in a communication criticizing the plan, which was reviewed by The Athletic. '… the idea was to pay the money into the unions, then the individuals.' In a statement to The Athletic, OneTeam said that though the plan was considered, it was ultimately abandoned. Advertisement 'In early 2024, OneTeam initiated an exploratory review to determine whether the company could lawfully offer incentive-based compensation to current and prospective Board members,' OneTeam Partners said. 'This exploratory effort was part of a broader initiative to assess strategies for attracting high-caliber, independent talent. 'Following the legal advice of a labor law expert, it was determined that the best practice, if implemented, was to make grants to the respective players associations. In so doing, any future payments would be governed by each union's player-approved bylaws, policy, and governance frameworks. It added: 'To be unequivocally clear: no OneTeam board member, nor any union employee, was directly or indirectly granted equity in OneTeam, holds equity in OneTeam or is a participant in its SEIP and any claim to the contrary is simply misinformed and false.' Federal authorities are conducting an investigation related to OneTeam Partners and union officials. The full scope of the probe, which is being run out of the Eastern District of New York, is unclear. The Eastern District of New York declined to comment. Advertisement Five major sports unions hold stakes in OneTeam, the two largest belonging to the NFLPA and the Major League Baseball Players Association, which together own two-thirds of the company, according to people briefed on the business structure who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The NFLPA has 44 percent, the MLBPA 22 percent. The unions representing players in Major League Soccer, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team and the Women's National Basketball Association own much smaller shares in OneTeam: 3.3 percent for MLS, .3 percent for the USWNTPA, and .2 percent for the WNBA, according to one of the people briefed on the structure. Early this month, the FBI started calling MLB and NFL players or their representatives. Prosecutor David Berman is heading the federal investigation, said people briefed on its process who were not authorized to speak publicly. With a federal investigation underway, the NFLPA has retained outside counsel separate from the outside lawyers retained by its executive director, Howell. Howell's lawyer did not reply to requests for comment. 'We're guided by our responsibility to our members in everything we do and we will continue to fully cooperate with the investigation,' the NFLPA said in a statement to The Athletic. Advertisement The MLBPA declined to comment Friday. That union too has retained outside counsel separate from its leader, Clark. His attorney did not return requests for comment. The NFLPA official who voiced concern about the incentive plan wrote that they were concerned about the potential for various conflicts of interest. The official argued internally that the change to the plan could dilute the players' existing stakes, which they held via their unions. The official also questioned whether the players were informed of how their financial interests might be affected. The NFLPA official's email with lawyers shows talk of changing OneTeam's SEIP dated to 2023, when a new CEO took over. In March 2024, OneTeam asked outside counsel whether there would be any issues granting union officials on its board participation in a SEIP, according to the same email. In response, the official wrote, the law firm flagged concerns regarding the National Labor Relations Act were any units to be granted directly to union board members. Plans like SEIP are common in the business world. Companies use them to reward and lure top leaders, and the programs often grant traditional shares in a company. Private companies in particular will often grant something that operates similarly to shares but is not traditional equity, according to Chris Crawford, managing director for the executive compensation practice at the firm Gallagher. Advertisement 'It's not a publicly traded, readily tradable environment,' Crawford said. 'It gets into these third-party transactions that get a little bit messy. The most common is by a generic term called 'phantom stock.'' Hence OneTeam's use of 'profits units.' But ultimately, OneTeam is not a common business because it is largely owned by unions. Union officials have legal obligations to their members and their members' interests, and most unions don't have for-profit arms with the overlay of those governance concerns. 'The labor organizations' representatives on the OTP Board are there as FIDUCIARIES representing their union members' direct ownership interests in the Company — their legal duties are not to the Company generally, but rather their union members' ownership in the company,' the NFLPA official wrote in the email to lawyers. Advertisement The union officials have their positions on OneTeam's board because of their union roles, positions for which they are already compensated. Howell was paid $3.6 million by the NFLPA for the 12 months from March 2024 through February 2025, according to the union's annual disclosure filed with the Department of Labor. Clark was paid $3.5 million for the 2024 calendar year, per the baseball union's filing. The NFLPA has four seats on OneTeam's board, and the MLBPA has three seats. Both Howell's and Clark's signatures appear on the resolution to change OneTeam's senior employee incentive plan. The unions representing players in MLS, the USWNT and the WNBA share one seat on the board that rotates. Only the signature of Becca Roux, the head of the USWNTPA, appears on the resolution from last year. Roux, as well as Bob Foose, head of the MLSPA, and Terri Jackson, head of the WNBPA, have hired Steve McCool of McGuireWoods as outside counsel. Advertisement 'I notified the prosecutor in New York that I represent a number of OTP board members,' McCool said by phone Friday. 'My clients have no cause for concern and they are available to answer any questions the government may have about this matter.' Outside investors own the remaining 30 percent of OneTeam that is not owned by unions. The SEIP resolution called for the NFLPA to receive 44 percent of the new plan units available to the board, and the MLBPA 33 percent. The other three unions were in line to receive 3.7 percent each. The outside investors on the board were not going to receive any new incentive units, the resolution said. Such an arrangement has the potential to create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, according to Lee Adler, a labor lawyer with no involvement in the matter who has long worked as counsel to unions. Advertisement 'Is there something in that set of criteria for the incentive that might have some influence on how or what the union officials who sit on the board actually end up … legislating (at OneTeam)?' asked Adler, a lecturer at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. NFLPA employees said at a meeting in November 2024 that they expected payments via SEIP would be $200,000 to $300,000, the NFLPA official wrote in the email. Sports unions have moved aggressively to capitalize on their players' branding rights. The MLBPA and NFLPA were among the founders of OneTeam in 2019. Both unions already had for-profit arms that handled licensing business, and those arms still exist today. But they were betting that a company with aggregated rights would have greater leverage. The venture has been a boon not only for the unions but also for the private equity investors who partnered with them. RedBird Capital cashed out its 40 percent stake in 2022, when the company had a $1.9 billion valuation. The windfalls from name, image and licensing rights carry a slew of gains for athletes, including bolstering traditional labor objectives like collective bargaining. The NFLPA reported about $101 million in revenue from OneTeam from early 2024 into 2025, and the MLBPA about $45 million for 2024. But both the baseball and football unions have been wrapped up in public controversy this year over, in part, OneTeam. Advertisement Late last year, an anonymous complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board levied allegations at Clark, including concerns over equity from OneTeam. The football union, where internal complaints had already been lodged, then brought on an outside firm, Linklaters, to conduct a review. The NFLPA has not publicized that firm's findings. But in March, in an email reviewed by , Howell notified OneTeam's board of directors that Linklaters found the NFLPA and OneTeam had been in compliance. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. NFL, MLB, MLS, WNBA, Sports Business 2025 The Athletic Media Company
New York Times
6 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
The board decision that sent the MLB, NFL unions into controversy
Last June, eight members of the board of directors for a licensing group called OneTeam Partners, which is co-owned by the players unions for five major sports leagues, signed a resolution that would have included the member unions in a plan to receive 'profits units.' Those units, like traditional equity, could be turned into cash if the company did well. Advertisement It was a move that raised alarms within at least one of the unions. By late 2024, an official at the National Football League Players Association had repeatedly raised concerns that implementing the plan could mean that labor officials serving on OneTeam's board of directors — including the head of the NFL players union, Lloyd Howell Jr., and the leader of the Major League Baseball players union, Tony Clark — were attempting to make a change that could lead to their own financial gain, potentially at the expense of union members. The resolution, which was obtained by The Athletic, called for any eventual payouts — made through what is known as a senior employee incentive plan (SEIP) — to go to the unions the board members hail from. The resolution also directly acknowledged the possibility that the unions could then grant that money to their board members. 'The explicit goal throughout the process was to financially enrich the individuals who serve on the OTP Board as labor organization representatives,' the NFLPA official wrote to lawyers in a communication criticizing the plan, which was reviewed by The Athletic. '… the idea was to pay the money into the unions, then the individuals.' In a statement to The Athletic, OneTeam said that though the plan was considered, it was ultimately abandoned. 'In early 2024, OneTeam initiated an exploratory review to determine whether the company could lawfully offer incentive-based compensation to current and prospective Board members,' OneTeam Partners said. 'This exploratory effort was part of a broader initiative to assess strategies for attracting high-caliber, independent talent. 'Following the legal advice of a labor law expert, it was determined that the best practice, if implemented, was to make grants to the respective players associations. In so doing, any future payments would be governed by each union's player-approved bylaws, policy, and governance frameworks. Advertisement It added: 'To be unequivocally clear: no OneTeam board member, nor any union employee, was directly or indirectly granted equity in OneTeam, holds equity in OneTeam or is a participant in its SEIP and any claim to the contrary is simply misinformed and false.' Federal authorities are conducting an investigation related to OneTeam Partners and union officials. The full scope of the probe, which is being run out of the Eastern District of New York, is unclear. The Eastern District of New York declined to comment. Five major sports unions hold stakes in OneTeam, the two largest belonging to the NFLPA and the Major League Baseball Players Association, which together own two-thirds of the company, according to people briefed on the business structure who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The NFLPA has 44 percent, the MLBPA 22 percent. The unions representing players in Major League Soccer, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team and the Women's National Basketball Association own much smaller shares in OneTeam: 3.3 percent for MLS, .3 percent for the USWNTPA, and .2 percent for the WNBA, according to one of the people briefed on the structure. Early this month, the FBI started calling MLB and NFL players or their representatives. Prosecutor David Berman is heading the federal investigation, said people briefed on its process who were not authorized to speak publicly. With a federal investigation underway, the NFLPA has retained outside counsel separate from the outside lawyers retained by its executive director, Howell. Howell's lawyer did not reply to requests for comment. 'We're guided by our responsibility to our members in everything we do and we will continue to fully cooperate with the investigation,' the NFLPA said in a statement to The Athletic. The MLBPA declined to comment Friday. That union too has retained outside counsel separate from its leader, Clark. His attorney did not return requests for comment. The NFLPA official who voiced concern about the incentive plan wrote that they were concerned about the potential for various conflicts of interest. The official argued internally that the change to the plan could dilute the players' existing stakes, which they held via their unions. The official also questioned whether the players were informed of how their financial interests might be affected. Advertisement The NFLPA official's email with lawyers shows talk of changing OneTeam's SEIP dated to 2023, when a new CEO took over. In March 2024, OneTeam asked outside counsel whether there would be any issues granting union officials on its board participation in a SEIP, according to the same email. In response, the official wrote, the law firm flagged concerns regarding the National Labor Relations Act were any units to be granted directly to union board members. Plans like SEIP are common in the business world. Companies use them to reward and lure top leaders, and the programs often grant traditional shares in a company. Private companies in particular will often grant something that operates similarly to shares but is not traditional equity, according to Chris Crawford, managing director for the executive compensation practice at the firm Gallagher. 'It's not a publicly traded, readily tradable environment,' Crawford said. 'It gets into these third-party transactions that get a little bit messy. The most common is by a generic term called 'phantom stock.'' Hence OneTeam's use of 'profits units.' But ultimately, OneTeam is not a common business because it is largely owned by unions. Union officials have legal obligations to their members and their members' interests, and most unions don't have for-profit arms with the overlay of those governance concerns. 'The labor organizations' representatives on the OTP Board are there as FIDUCIARIES representing their union members' direct ownership interests in the Company — their legal duties are not to the Company generally, but rather their union members' ownership in the company,' the NFLPA official wrote in the email to lawyers. The union officials have their positions on OneTeam's board because of their union roles, positions for which they are already compensated. Howell was paid $3.6 million by the NFLPA for the 12 months from March 2024 through February 2025, according to the union's annual disclosure filed with the Department of Labor. Clark was paid $3.5 million for the 2024 calendar year, per the baseball union's filing. Advertisement The NFLPA has four seats on OneTeam's board, and the MLBPA has three seats. Both Howell's and Clark's signatures appear on the resolution to change OneTeam's senior employee incentive plan. The unions representing players in MLS, the USWNT and the WNBA share one seat on the board that rotates. Only the signature of Becca Roux, the head of the USWNTPA, appears on the resolution from last year. Roux, as well as Bob Foose, head of the MLSPA, and Terri Jackson, head of the WNBPA, have hired Steve McCool of McGuireWoods as outside counsel. 'I notified the prosecutor in New York that I represent a number of OTP board members,' McCool said by phone Friday. 'My clients have no cause for concern and they are available to answer any questions the government may have about this matter.' Outside investors own the remaining 30 percent of OneTeam that is not owned by unions. The SEIP resolution called for the NFLPA to receive 44 percent of the new plan units available to the board, and the MLBPA 33 percent. The other three unions were in line to receive 3.7 percent each. The outside investors on the board were not going to receive any new incentive units, the resolution said. Such an arrangement has the potential to create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, according to Lee Adler, a labor lawyer with no involvement in the matter who has long worked as counsel to unions. 'Is there something in that set of criteria for the incentive that might have some influence on how or what the union officials who sit on the board actually end up … legislating (at OneTeam)?' asked Adler, a lecturer at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. NFLPA employees said at a meeting in November 2024 that they expected payments via SEIP would be $200,000 to $300,000, the NFLPA official wrote in the email. Advertisement Sports unions have moved aggressively to capitalize on their players' branding rights. The MLBPA and NFLPA were among the founders of OneTeam in 2019. Both unions already had for-profit arms that handled licensing business, and those arms still exist today. But they were betting that a company with aggregated rights would have greater leverage. The venture has been a boon not only for the unions but also for the private equity investors who partnered with them. RedBird Capital cashed out its 40 percent stake in 2022, when the company had a $1.9 billion valuation. The windfalls from name, image and licensing rights carry a slew of gains for athletes, including bolstering traditional labor objectives like collective bargaining. The NFLPA reported about $101 million in revenue from OneTeam from early 2024 into 2025, and the MLBPA about $45 million for 2024. But both the baseball and football unions have been wrapped up in public controversy this year over, in part, OneTeam. Late last year, an anonymous complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board levied allegations at Clark, including concerns over equity from OneTeam. The football union, where internal complaints had already been lodged, then brought on an outside firm, Linklaters, to conduct a review. The NFLPA has not publicized that firm's findings. But in March, in an email reviewed by The Athletic, Howell notified OneTeam's board of directors that Linklaters found the NFLPA and OneTeam had been in compliance. (Top photo of Lloyd Howell Jr.: Sean Gardner / Getty Images)
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The battle over Utah's collective bargaining ban: How Utahns say they would vote
Over the last few months there's been a lot of discussion and controversy over Utah's law banning public sector collective bargaining and the referendum to repeal it. But how do Utahns actually feel about the law? The Deseret News recently ran a poll with HarrisX asking over 800 Utahns what they think of the labor unions referendum movement happening in Utah, here's a look at what the response was. The law, HB267, was passed through the Utah Legislature this year and shortly after a group of public unions filed for a referendum against it. Respondents to the poll were asked: 'The referendum to repeal the law that bans public employee unions in Utah from collective bargaining recently qualified for the 2026 ballot. If the election were held today, would you vote in favor or against the referendum?' Out of 805 registered voters, 36% said they would vote in favor of the referendum, 32% said they'd vote against and 31% said they don't know. 'This shows that while the referendum supporters gathered historic numbers of signatures, that's not necessarily translating directly to support for the referendum overall,' wrote Kevin Greene, the state director of Americans for Prosperity Utah, who is in favor of HB267. When it comes to party affiliation, Republicans were split almost perfectly into thirds, with 33% saying they'd vote in favor, 33% against and 34% saying they don't know. 'The recent poll confirms what we already know: Utahns stand with public workers, no matter their political affiliation. Support for the referendum is strong and we see a significant opportunity to grow that support further,' according to a statement from the Protect Utah Workers coalition. Democrats had a stronger lean toward the referendum, with 50% saying they'd vote in favor, 27% saying they'd vote against and 23% saying they don't know. 'I think these results show that there's a lot of room to educate the public on what HB267 actually did and why it's good policy for Utah,' Greene said. 'We're already doing that through conversations at the grassroots level, and we're seeing support grow in favor of this new law when people get fully connected to it.' This survey was conducted online from May 16-21 among 805 registered voters in Utah by HarrisX. Respondents are recruited through opt-in, web-panel recruitment sampling. Recruitment occurs through a broad variety of professional, validated respondent panels to expand the sampling frame as wide as possible and minimize the impact of any given panel on recruiting methods. The results reflect a representative sample of registered voters in the state. Results for voters were weighted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, political party, education, and congressional district. The margin of error for the sample is +/- 3.5 percentage points. 'It appears that every side, regardless of your position, has a lot of ground to cover, for, for or against,' said Jason Perry, Director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah. 'I expect, given these numbers, all, whatever side people are on, there will be a renewed effort to reframe the arguments for and against.' David Osborne, the senior director of Labor Policy with the Commonwealth Foundation, shared what the different provisions of the bill are. The first thing it does is prohibits collective bargaining for public labor union, which is what has drawn the most controversy. Collective bargaining is when an employer and a union come together to negotiate a contract for employees. It also has a provision called paycheck protection 'in Utah, that means that there's only so much union dues that can be collected via payroll deduction,' Osborne said. There is also a ban on government support for union activities, which includes 'giving union employees paid leave to participate in union activities,' as well as allowing unions to use certain spaces for free. The law also puts an end to involving public sector unions in the state retirement system. It also would provide liability insurance for teachers, which was previously only available through the unions. 'So that would take away the impulse for someone who doesn't want to be part of the union to join anyway,' Osborne said. There is also a transparency aspect to HB267, which would require unions to report to the labor commission their membership numbers and where they're spending their money. This law only deals with public sector labor unions and has nothing to do with the private sector. Under HB267 unions would still have the right to exist and operate, they just would no longer be able to participate in collective bargaining. While the law would impact all public sector unions in the state, teachers have been the focus of a lot of the arguments over HB267. There have been multiple organizations that openly support HB267, one of these is Utah Parents United, which supports the law because they want schools to focus more on students and parents. 'It will take the focus off the politics in school, right, and then start putting the focus back on student success and our kids. And that's what education should be about. It should really be about our kids the end of the day and and that's why we love this bill,' said Corinne Johnson, the founder and president of Utah Parents United. Osborne said that part of HB267 is protecting public employees who don't want to be a part of the union. 'Usually in America, we think individualistically about individual rights, civil rights, one of which would be to choose who represents you and who doesn't speak for you, but exclusive representation and unionism is a collective enterprise. It's sort of the opposite of what we might think of as a individual liberties in another context.' But with the paycheck protection and retirement system provisions, its more than just about employees. 'This is a lot more than just protecting an individual public employee, this seems to also be about the taxpayer,' he added. One argument in favor of the law is that it will decrease the political power of the unions. Osborne shared that in Chicago the teacher's union got one of their union officials elected as mayor. 'They get him in place, and then come negotiation time, they're like, 'Alright, let's do a deal.' He has basically drawn up plans to bankrupt the city for the benefit of the teachers unions,' he said. He also added that the law will help governments 'actually run things,' instead of focusing on negotiating with the unions. 'This law, again, takes away our voice. It takes away the autonomy of our employers to recognize a bargaining agent,' said Renee Pinkney, the president of the Utah Education Association. The Protect Utah Workers Coalition has been leading the charge in the fight against HB267. The coalition is made up of 19 different unions in the state including the UEA, Teamsters Local 222, American Federation of Government Employees and Professional Firefighters of Utah. 'It's about our voice. It's about our ability to make positive improvements in our schools, and it's about democracy, because we believe the people should be able to weigh in on this particular decision,' Pinkney said. Pinkney said that the ability to collective bargain doesn't just help when it comes to compensation packages, but also with working conditions, safety and their students' learning conditions. But she added that being able to collective bargain for compensation allows districts to stay competitive. Harrison Long, a firefighter who is a part of the Salt Lake City Local 81 union, helped with the signature gathering effort and shared why he is against HB267. He agreed that collective bargaining helps firefighters not just with wages but with safety. One thing firefighters in Salt Lake City have been able to negotiate for is four-handed staffing, which makes it so each fire engine has to have four firefighters, making it easier for them to do their job and safer for the public. 'We believe that firefighters should have a voice in firefighting,' Long said. 'It is important for public workers, for educators, to be able to collaborate with our districts to improve working conditions, to make sure that we have healthy and safe schools for our students, for our educators, that we are working to help our students and educators thrive,' Pinkney added. One other point Pinkney made is that some districts and organizations use collective bargaining and others don't, based on their needs and situation. 'One size doesn't fit all,' she said. HB267, sponsored by Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R- South Jordan, was one of the most controversial bills of this year's legislative session and after it was passed by lawmakers, it was signed by Gov. Spencer Cox. As soon as the session ended, the public unions against the law came together to form the protect Utah workers coalition and filed an application for a referendum against the law. The next few weeks were engulfed by a signature gathering campaign by the coalition, which included volunteers and paid signature gatherers. After the coalition turned in over 300,000 signatures, signature verification was completed on May 8. At the end of the verification process conducted by county clerks offices around the state, 251,590 signatures had been verified and 73,136 signatures had been rejected. In Utah a referendum requires 140,748 signatures to qualify for the ballot. The law was originally supposed to go into effect on July 1 but on May 6, Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson issued a temporary stay of HB267, meaning it will not go into effect when originally planned. Under the temporary stay, the ban on public sector collective bargaining will stay paused until the lieutenant governor declares the referendum petition insufficient or the governor issues a proclamation putting the law into effect. Even though the signature verification process has been finished, signatures can still be removed, Pinkney said she believes the deadline for signature removal is June 23. The amount of signatures gathered qualifies the referendum for the ballot and it is assumed that the referendum will be on the ballot during the November 2026 general election in Utah, but nothing is confirmed. There are a few other options as to what could happen, for example a special election could be called by the governor. As soon as it is confirmed that the referendum will be on the ballot and when that will be, it is expected that both sides will be launching campaigns to encourage Utahns on how to vote. 'We're confident that when voters have the final say, they will reject HB267 and stand with the people who serve our communities every day. Public workers are united, momentum is on our side, and we will win,' according to a statement from the Protected Utah Workers Coalition. Pinkney said that the campaign for the referendum would look similar to the UEA's campaign against Constitutional Amendment A. 'We'll keep doing what we've been doing — talking to the public about why the law is great policy for Utah. It protects taxpayers and ensures accountability. We're ready to continue our push to rally support for the law if it ends up on the ballot,' Greene wrote.
