Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Unions Release Time topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Second Hearing on Bill to Ban ‘Release Time’ for Union Business
Summary
Supporters told the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee that taxpayers should not pay for public employees to perform union business; senators asked whether the bill would inadvertently bar public-safety or city-related duties and whether the cited cost figures account for work done on behalf of local governments.
The Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee heard proponent testimony Tuesday on Senate Bill 8, which would prohibit so-called “release time,” the practice of allowing public employees paid time off from their government jobs to perform union business.
Hannah Cubbins, legislative director for Americans for Prosperity Ohio, told the committee the measure “prohibits the practice of release time,” which she said lets government employees “conduct business for their respective organized labor unions while still receiving their full salary and benefits paid for by the taxpayers.” Cubbins cited figures from a Goldwater Institute study that, she said, show the city of Columbus paid “more than $1,100,000 and 38,469 hours” to individuals between June 2019 and June 2020 due to release time, and that “the department of corrections paid roughly $597,000 and 22,681 hours” in the same period.
Beau Uton, testifying for FGA Action, told the committee taxpayer dollars “should never go to private organizations for the purpose of engaging in politics or advocacy,” and repeated statistical claims presented in written testimony and cited by in-person witnesses, including that government unions spent more than $6,000,000 on politics in the 2021–22 cycle and that the majority of those contributions favored Democrats.
Committee members pressed proponents on the line between union activity and work performed on behalf of a city or agency. Senator DeMora asked for a specific example in which “the state or community was harmed by a public employee coming to testify on a bill.” Cubbins said she did not have a specific example but argued the public benefit can be “highly subjective.”
Senator Weller told witnesses the Goldwater Institute numbers “do not differentiate the release time between what potentially someone was doing for the union or what somebody is doing on behalf of their city,” and said that when employees appear before local or state bodies on city business that also counts as release time. Cubbins acknowledged the Goldwater Institute had “a difficult time obtaining those numbers” and said she would be “open to seeing different metrics, different methodology” to reach a definitive calculation.
Senator Weinstein questioned whether the bill’s language could be read subjectively to bar activities such as a police officer or firefighter advocating for better training or safety standards. Cubbins and Uton said they were open to clarifying amendments to distinguish duties falling within an employee’s public role from union-directed activity.
No vote was taken; the committee concluded the second hearing on Senate Bill 8 and noted written testimony submitted by the Goldwater Institute, the Associated Builders and Contractors of Ohio, and others.
