A little-known practice called “release time” allows thousands of unionized government employees to work for their unions on the taxpayers’ dime, rather than performing their duties as public servants. This means that instead of teaching, fighting fires, or providing social services, these employees are recruiting new union members, lobbying the government, and campaigning for Democratic politicians.
In some cases, “release time” employees are paid a full-time salary to work for their union, without ever setting foot in a classroom or performing any other public service. This practice has become more widespread since the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, which held that forcing government union employees to pay union dues was a violation of their First Amendment rights.
In response to the decision, government unions have turned to “release time” as a way to maintain their power and influence. By including clauses in collective bargaining contracts, unions can require local governments to pay their employees to work for the union, rather than performing their public duties.
A study by the Goldwater Institute found that at least 400,000 hours of annual “release time” are documented in government union contracts from 44 jurisdictions. One of the worst offenders was the city of Phoenix, which allowed 67,511 hours of paid union release time per year, at a cost to taxpayers of $3.7 million. This included four full-time employees who were paid to work exclusively for the union.
The Goldwater Institute sued Phoenix on behalf of taxpayers, and the Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that “release time” violates the state’s constitution. Similar lawsuits are underway in New Jersey and Texas, and many states have “gift clauses” in their constitutions that prohibit giving public resources to private entities.
While eliminating government unions altogether may be a long-term goal, ending “release time” is a crucial step in the right direction. As President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
