Witnesses tell House General and Housing Committee Prop 3 would enshrine Vermonters' right to organize

Sean Stott, director of governmental affairs for the Laborers' Midwest Region, David Mickenberg, attorney for Working Vermont and the Vermont Building Construction Trades Council, and Chris Doobie, president of Professional Firefighters of Vermont, told the House General and Housing Committee on April 17 that Proposition 3 would enshrine the right to organize and collectively bargain in the Vermont Constitution and block so-called right-to-work laws.

The witnesses said the amendment is intended to protect existing collective-bargaining rights from being reduced by future legislation or court decisions. "No longer would workers with a strong and effective voice in the workplace be at risk of being a political football blown around by the winds of one election's outcome to the next," Stott said, describing Illinois' recent experience after that state's amendment to protect workers' rights.

Prop 3 would add constitutional language affirming employees' right to organize and bargain collectively and would prohibit state-level right-to-work laws. David Mickenberg said the amendment "codifies in our constitution the right to organize a union" and the right to collectively bargain, and he described the measure as intended to preserve rights Vermonters already have under state and federal law.

Witnesses described two main rationales for the amendment. Proponents said (1) it would make rights harder to revoke by ordinary statute and (2) it would prevent future state law from banning union recognition or collective bargaining. Stott described economic and political turmoil he attributed to a 2015 Illinois governor's push for right-to-work changes, saying the state's budget was blocked for more than two years, business payments were delayed, and bond ratings were cut. He told the committee that private investment reported to state economic programs rose from $6,300,000,000 in 2023 to $12,500,000,000 in 2024, which he offered as context in arguing the amendment did not make businesses flee Illinois.

Committee members pressed witnesses on legal scope and mechanics. Several asked whether the amendment's wording—particularly the word "employee"—would automatically expand collective-bargaining coverage to groups currently excluded under Vermont or federal law (for example, categories of workers defined differently across statutes). Mickenberg and Stott said such changes would not be automatic: courts could interpret constitutional language in different ways and the legislature would likely need to pass implementing statutes to create processes such as card-check recognition or electoral certification for newly covered groups. "I don't think it's automatic that just because it says the word employee that somebody is automatically going to be given the right to organize," Mickenberg said.

The Janus decision and Harris v. Quinn were discussed in that context. Committee members asked whether the amendment's prohibition on agreements requiring union membership would conflict with Janus, which limited compelled fees in the public sector. Mickenberg said Janus is a public-sector decision; the measure's drafters discussed that earlier cases and possible future Supreme Court rulings shaped the inclusion of the provision that would bar agreements requiring membership as a condition of employment in the private sector.

Chris Doobie, representing Vermont firefighters, framed the amendment as a preventive measure against state laws that would bar recognition or bargaining. He cited recent laws in other states, including Utah, that he said restrict public-sector bargaining, and argued that collective bargaining has produced safety and benefit improvements for workers. "Right to work is not right to work. It's right not to work," Doobie said.

No formal vote or committee action on Prop 3 occurred during the hearing. Committee members continued to question witnesses and the panel took a short recess after roughly an hour of testimony.

The committee did not adopt implementing language or take a procedural vote on Prop 3 during the session recorded in this transcript. The witnesses asked the legislature to send the amendment to voters; they said courts and statutes would determine how any new rights are implemented if the amendment is approved.