Most Recent Content

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY and Stop Your Tax Dollars from Paying Teachers Union Salaries!

We need you help today!

Believe it or not, there is nothing preventing full-time Teachers Union presidents from getting a large portion of their salary paid by the very school district whom they negotiate their collective bargaining agreements with. Let us put this in clear terms - A full-time union employee, who has been granted full-time leave from the school district to work for the union, is receiving half of their salary and benefits from the school district!

There is one more critical stop for Senate Bill 77. The Senate passed this bill with a 17-11-1 vote (Go HERE to see how your Senator voted). It has now moved on to the House of Representatives and will receive it's FINAL vote very soon.

Contact your Representative (find HERE ) first and ask them to support Senate Bill 77. Then contact all members of the House of Representatives and ask them to vote YES (find HERE). Your calls and emails do make a difference. Your actions can help get this bill passed!

We cannot afford to divert money away from the classroom, especially in lean budget years. Districts must be held accountable to taxpayers to spend their budgets directly on the education of our children. Union salaries are not an appropriate expenditure. Help us put a stop to this unethical practice!

What did the Salt Lake Tribune say? ( UEA Pay Deal , March 1, 2009 ). "It has evolved to mean, in practice, that some districts continue to fork out hefty amounts to pay people who are no longer working strictly for the district. In fact, in union parlance, these UEA officials are being paid by the employer, the opponent in contract negotiations. It's like having one foot on the ground and the other on a moving train."

Tell your Representative to put a stop to it!


Recent News about SB77
Bill to prohibit paid teachers union leave advances | Deseret News
Utah Legislature: Union rep salaries targeted by bill| Deseret News
Bill to prohibit paid union leave clears committee| Salt Lake Tribune
It's Not the Responsibility of Taxpayers to Provide the Teachers' Union with a Voice | Utah Policy


Below you will find a summary of the bill outlining the conflicts and questionable ethics of this practice.

  Senate Bill 77 First Substitute - School District Leave Policies
Chief Sponsor: Margaret Dayton
House Sponsor: Keith Grover
Passed the Senate 17-11-1

Prohibits a local school board from granting paid association leave for certain employee association or union duties; requires reimbursement to a school district of the costs for certain employees, including benefits, for the time that exceeds 10 business days that the employee is on unpaid association leave or participating in certain paid association leave activities. ("Employee association" means an association that negotiates employee salaries, benefits, contracts, or other conditions of employment or performs union duties)

• On November 1, 2009, The Office of Legislative Auditor General of the State of Utah released a report on Association Leave in Utah's School Districts. The most revealing and obvious finding in the OLAG report, "The association president represents the interests of teachers which, at times, conflict with the interests of the district." The report also found, "Districts are not fulfilling their statutory responsibilities to ensure that association leave has a direct benefit to the school district." http://www.le.state.ut.us/audit/09_bilr.pdf

• This bill addresses fiscal responsibility. We cannot afford to divert money away from the classroom, especially in lean budget years.

• Districts must be held accountable to taxpayers to spend their budgets directly on the education of children. Union salaries are not an appropriate expenditure.

• In opposition of the 2009 bill, HB381, UEA President, Kim Campbell stated, "This bill would take away the voice of teacher associations." (Deseret News Feb. 24, 2009). Unions are a private organization whose sole responsibility is to represent the interests of dues paying members.  Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize an organization that does not represent them, regardless of their claims about benefiting districts.