The Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee spent substantial time discussing S.125, a broad labor omnibus measure. The House-added changes would raise the threshold required to decertify a union from 30% to 50% plus one and extend that change across multiple labor-relations statutes; the bill would also permit judiciary supervisors to organize under the judiciary employee labor-relations act.

The matter drew extended testimony and questions from committee members; the committee did not vote and directed additional witnesses to appear before it takes final action.

Committee staff walked members through the House changes. Sophie, for Legislative Council, summarized that the bill’s original workers' compensation sections were moved to S.117 and that S.125 “had, judiciary supervisors being able to organize and collectively bargain” and the expansion of the decertification threshold across other labor-relations acts.

Tom, identified in committee as a legislative coordinator and representing the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA), described why proponents sought a higher decertification threshold in the first instance. He told the committee the concern that prompted the change was the frequency of decertification petitions and “the fear…of true frequent decertification attempts brought forward by a vocal but small minority.” He said proponents sought “consistency across the bargaining statutes.”

Committee members debated policy trade-offs. One member noted that increasing the decertification threshold to 50% plus one for all bargaining units would make Vermont “overnight become the most restrictive state in the country when it comes to decertification.” Another member said the original move to 50% plus one related to specific circumstances and that applying it across seven distinct labor statutes deserved further consideration.

The bill lists the affected statutes in sections 5c–5h, which Sophie summarized as applying the threshold change to the judiciary employees labor-relations act, teachers and administrators, the State Employee Labor Relations Act, the municipal employee relations act, independent direct support providers, and early care and education providers. Sophie noted the early care and education statute exists but that “no one has organized under it” yet.

Committee members asked for more information from employer groups and other stakeholders. The committee agreed to continue the discussion and hear additional testimony — including from VSEA and employer groups — at a future meeting, with staff suggesting the item be revisited at the committee’s next scheduled session.

Because the committee took no final vote, the proposal remains under active consideration; members asked staff to circulate materials and witnesses ahead of the next discussion.