HB267 started as a bill to completely eliminate collective bargaining for public sector unions, the process where a union meets with an employer to negotiate an employment contract.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, passed the House after a 42-32 vote, with 18 Republicans joining 14 Democrats to vote “no.”

But after widespread opposition — both from the state’s unions and a number of lawmakers — a change was proposed in the Senate, allowing public unions to still engage in collective bargaining, with a caveat.

As long as the union receives support from at least 50% of the employees in an organization, like a school district or fire department, regardless of whether or not they’re union members, it could still act as a bargaining agent on behalf of all employees.

But the new version of the bill hasn’t actually been adopted and didn’t pass the Senate — instead, lawmakers last Thursday voted for the original version, which includes the total ban on collective bargaining. To win over support from some of his more skeptical colleagues, the sponsor in the Senate, Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, promised there would be an amendment by Friday.

Lawmakers then tabled the bill on Friday, and again on Monday. Now, Cullimore said he’s been getting “mixed messaging” on whether unions support the new version.

There’s a possibility that lawmakers, instead of pushing the compromise, could instead vote to advance the original version of the bill. When asked if that was a possibility, Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, told reporters “absolutely.”

“I’m hearing, from some people, support for the original bill,” he said on Monday.

Senate rules require lawmakers to vote on each bill twice. So, since the original has already passed once, HB267 needs just one more vote before it goes to the governor’s desk.

Cullimore said the Senate will most likely pass the amended version. “But the mixed messaging from all the various stakeholders has been a little confusing this morning,” he told Utah News Dispatch on Monday. He prefers the original version rather than the compromise.

The bill has garnered significant controversy this legislative session, with more than 13,000 people signing on to a Utah Education Association petition urging a “no” vote, and several lawmakers saying they’ve never seen so much opposition to a bill. Hundreds of people — most of them teachers, firefighters, police officers, electricians, plumbers, steelworkers, miners and other union supporters — showed up outside of the Senate gallery on Friday in protest.

A similar but smaller crowd gathered outside of the Senate on Monday.

The bill would have an outsized impact on Salt Lake City, whose fire and police departments are some of the only public unions in Utah that collectively bargain (a number of school districts around the state also collectively bargain).

In addition to changing contract negotiations, the bill would restrict certain government resources from going toward union activity. That includes ensuring taxpayer funds won’t pay a public employee for the work they do for a union.

It would offer professional liability insurance for teachers to help with employment disputes, which in most cases is only currently offered through a union. Teuscher said that would cost each teacher between $110 to $150 annually.

People who are employed by a union but aren’t actually employed by the entity the union represents would no longer have access to the Utah Retirement System. For example, someone who works in an administrative position for a teachers union full time, but isn’t actually employed by a school district, wouldn’t be eligible for the state’s retirement benefits.

And unions wouldn’t get special exemptions for using public resources, like property — if other groups or people have to pay to use a public room or space, so does the union.

Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.