No More No-Work Paydays for Public-Sector Unions in Arizona

F or union president Frank Piccioli, a new decision by the Arizona supreme court means one thing — he has to go back to work for the City of Phoenix.

You see, Piccioli has benefitted from something called “release time,” which allows public-sector union bosses to collect paychecks from taxpayers for city jobs while actually doing work to benefit their unions — full time. Piccioli, who leads a local chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), used to work as a 911 dispatcher, but for years, he has worked exclusively for his union while receiving his full government salary.

That’s illegal, as the Arizona supreme court declared last week.

Unfortunately, Piccioli isn’t the only one who has been doing union work at your expense.

Release time exists at the federal, state, and local level. According to the most recent statistics, the federal government spends nearly $135 million each year on official time (a number that has likely significantly increased under the Biden administration). Local governments, likewise, grant generous release-time benefits to labor unions. The City of Phoenix spends nearly $3.7 million each year on release time, an amount that eclipses the money collected from union dues.

Where is all this money going? To union coffers. Union bosses, like Piccioli, use their taxpayer-funded salaries to engage in political and lobbying activities, attend union conferences and meetings, recruit new members to the union, and otherwise work to advance the union’s interests — not those of the public.

The Goldwater Institute, where I work, represented two Phoenix employees and taxpayers in a legal challenge to release time under the Arizona constitution’s gift clause, which prohibits the government from giving public resources to private entities. We asserted that giving the union $1 million in release-time benefits was an unconstitutional subsidy because the union is the true beneficiary of these expenditures, not the public.

In a unanimous ruling, the state supreme court agreed. It held that “the costs and benefits here are so one-sided that it is difficult to envision how such expansive release time provisions could ever survive” constitutional scrutiny.

Because nearly every state constitution has a gift clause and because many state and local governments subsidize unions with release time, this decision could have far-reaching consequences throughout the country.

Indeed, earlier this summer, while upholding the specific release-time provisions challenged in another case, the Texas supreme court expressed considerable skepticism regarding the constitutionality of the practice under that state’s gift clauses. Writing for the dissent, Justice Brett Busby was more direct: “The Gift Clauses of the Texas Constitution exist to protect citizens from their government, which our history shows is vulnerable to capture by private special interests who seek to use public funds for their own ends.”

Defenders of release time — mostly the union bosses who benefit from it — contend that release time is necessary to ensure smooth relations between labor and government. But there is no evidence of this, and the opposite is probably true: Having full-time union officials on the government payroll to take positions against the public interest likely prevents “labor peace.” What’s more, release-time apologists provide no explanation for how spending taxpayer funds on unions’ political and lobbying activities advances any public interest whatsoever, nor do they say why unions themselves can’t pay for their private activities.

Government labor unions are simply used to getting what they want by leveraging government power — and taxpayer resources — to advance their agendas. When policy-makers and union officials negotiate things such as release time, both parties violate their fiduciary duties to taxpayers and transfer democratic authority from the people to unelected labor bosses.

Release time is a consequence of this pernicious symbiotic relationship: Union leaders support politicians who, in turn, confer lavish benefits — funded by taxpayers — on the same unions who paid them off.

The Arizona supreme court saw through this unseemly abuse of the taxpayer. Other courts and policy-makers should take notice: Public funds should be spent for public purposes, not to advance private, special interests. And union bosses like Piccioli should get back to work in the jobs they were hired to perform. After all, what would you prefer: more 911 dispatchers on the lines ready for your call, or more union bosses using your money to advance their political agendas?