By State lawmakers are limiting the special advantages that let teachers’ unions lobby on the public dime.
Teachers’ unions have long enjoyed access to public payroll systems and facilities that no private entity receives. Recent legislation in three states demonstrates a better path: public funds are redirected toward improving student outcomes, not strengthening union infrastructure.
Idaho got the ball rolling on April 10, when Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 516a. The law prohibits the use of public resources and facilities for union activities. Districts are now barred from collecting dues through payroll systems, hosting union meetings or trainings at school sites during work hours, or granting paid leave for political advocacy. The bill’s supporters argue that public resources should be directed toward educational functions rather than union operations.
Florida was next: Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1296 on May 1. Beyond requiring meaningful participation thresholds for union certification and recertification elections, the legislation held teachers unions accountable by stopping taxpayer-funded union time for political activities.
Unions must now show genuine support from members rather than relying on automatic access to public payroll and facilities. These changes promote transparency, reduce unions’ reliance on public administrative systems, and require them to demonstrate support through voluntary member participation.
Now it’s Arizona’s turn. Republicans there passed House Concurrent Resolution 2040 on June 12. Because the measure proposes a constitutional amendment, it bypassed Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and heads directly to voters in November. HCR 2040 would add language to Article XVIII of the Arizona Constitution prohibiting school districts from using any public monies or public resources to support the operations of a labor organization.
Specifically, it bars the use of school email systems and equipment to recruit members or distribute union materials, ends automatic payroll deductions for union dues, and prohibits union meetings on school property during school hours when students are present. Taxpayer-supported institutions should be neutral, not used as union organizing hubs that lobby the same government that funds them.
This concern predates contemporary debates over education policy. Decades ago, a leading progressive articulated the fundamental conflict of public sector unions, as taxpayers occupy both sides of the negotiating table. In a 1937 letter to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote:
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.
Public-sector unions differ fundamentally from private-sector ones because the employer is the taxpayer. Collective bargaining in government pits employees against the public, rather than against private profit motives. Roosevelt continued:
The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.
Opponents sometimes argue that restricting taxpayer support for union activities violates teachers’ First Amendment rights. The claim does not hold. Teachers retain full freedom to form voluntary associations, pay dues from their own pockets, and engage in political speech on their own time and with their own resources. No constitutional provision grants any group the right to extract compulsory subsidies from the general public or from non-members through government payroll mechanisms. Ending forced taxpayer support simply restores voluntary association and government neutrality.
Teachers unions have increasingly served as reliable extensions of the Democratic Party agenda. The National Education Association killed a resolution in 2019 that would have rededicated the organization to increased student learning as its central priority. In 2025, the same body adopted numerous political resolutions that functioned more as attacks on the Trump administration than as statements about classroom practice.
The political flavor of the organization’s actions is pronounced: NEA President Becky Pringle remains an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee. In the most recent election cycle, over 98 percent of the NEA’s political contributions flowed to Democratic candidates and causes. The pattern doesn’t look like independent advocacy on behalf of educators.
The issue is not unique to teachers unions. Whenever a public institution provides resources to an organization that seeks to influence public policy, a principal-agent problem emerges. Taxpayers fund the institution, but its leaders may use public resources to advance the interests of the narrow group, rather than those of the broader public.
Similar patterns appear at the American Federation of Teachers. Its president, Randi Weingarten, reportedly directed more than $1.4 million in union resources toward promoting her book — which brands mainstream conservatives as “fascists.” She also leveraged the union’s substantial pension fund holdings to pressure retailer Target into publicly opposing federal immigration enforcement. Using retirement assets accumulated from teachers’ paychecks to pursue unrelated political objectives constitutes a clear departure from fiduciary responsibility.
Every state could replicate Idaho’s approach, requiring government to remain neutral, not backing specific advocacy organizations with public funds. Taxpayers already finance public schools: a trillion dollars in total per-pupil spending. They should not be compelled underwrite the political operations of organizations that consistently prioritize partisan influence over measurable improvements in student achievement.
The question is not whether teachers unions should exist, but whether taxpayers should subsidize organizations that subsequently seek more taxpayer subsidy, often for actions the taxpayer wouldn’t otherwise support.
Removing public subsidies forces unions to rely on voluntary member support, increases accountability, and keeps government resources focused on their proper purpose: educating children. The reforms in Idaho, Florida, and Arizona mark the beginning of a necessary correction.