The union-busting law will harm Idaho’s teachers and students | Opinion

Superficially, Maxford Nelsen’s recent opinion piece on the anti-teachers union bill — HB 516 — provides well-thought-out reasons as to why the bill is good for Idaho. Nelsen correctly points out that the bill continues to allow teachers to join unions and that HB 516 does not end collective bargaining.

Yet the piece fails to acknowledge the problems that arise in attacking Idaho’s population of teachers. It also disregards how HB 516’s “common sense” changes will restrict teacher union power, a power that could expand the number of competent educators here. HB 516 hurts our state’s teachers and students.

Teaching has a widely identified problem: It fails to attract talent due to poor pay. According to the Economic Policy Institute, teachers, on average, earn 73.4 cents for every dollar relative to other college-educated professionals. Accounting for a “benefits advantage,” the compensation gap decreases somewhat, but incomes still are about 16.7% lower than wages for similar workers.

Admittedly, Idaho has less of an issue with this than other states. The average teacher salary here is $61,516, which is higher than the average Idahoan’s income, though still 34th in the nation.

Nevertheless, compared to all but one adjacent state, Idaho has the lowest salaries for those in the profession. Moreover, the state continues to suffer from significant shortages of teachers, and these shortages are especially high in locations where, to quote the Board of Education of Idaho, “the salary is not competitive with nearby communities.” The Idaho State Department of Education also notes that school enrollment in Idaho has increased significantly, and there have not been enough teachers hired to provide for this heightened population.

A robust Idaho teachers union will lead to even higher pay for teachers in addition to increased student outcomes. In their research on school finance reforms, Brunner et al. observe that “districts in strong teachers’ union states allocated ... additional spending toward increasing teacher salaries.” Their findings also reveal that school districts with lower incomes in strong teachers union states score .08 standard deviations higher on student achievement tests after school financial reforms than those in weak teachers union states. On the whole, a strong teachers union helps Idaho.

Therefore, the changes that HB 516 presents for this state will likely have negative outcomes for teachers and students in Idaho.

Nelsen’s article references HB 516’s direct words adequately. According to its language, the bill stops school districts from “distributing communication or membership solicitations on behalf of a teacher’s union” or “requiring or coercing a professional employee [e.g., a teacher] to meet, communicate, listen to, or otherwise interact with a teachers union.” In theory, as Nelsen notes, this might just mean that the bill “bar[s] districts from forcing educators to sit through union membership solicitations on work time.”

But, in reality, the language of the bill more likely results in significantly decreased teachers union power. Gov. Brad Little wrote that the bill “contains language” that is “overly broad and ambiguous and will lead to increased scrutiny of a teacher’s actions.” And the Idaho Education Association (IEA) wrote that, due to the bill, it “will no longer be able to hold union meetings during breaks or otherwise scheduled times at their worksites.” They are likely banned from using school buildings for labor-management communication and will be unable to communicate to IEA members through employer email addresses.

At a time when Idaho teachers have scored some wins with higher pay, HB 516’s vague language threatens to curtail what gains they have made. Unfortunately, the new bill was signed into law just as labor leverage has been diminished nationwide. In 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that ended collective bargaining for a myriad of federal employees.

Historically, labor unions helped to grow America’s middle class substantially after WWII. That middle-class stability has eroded as, over the last half-century, union membership has gone down. Why should Idaho’s teachers take part in an anti-union trend that ultimately hurts the mobility of all Americans?

Edward Dorey is a Boise State alum with an interest in Idahoan history and politics. He has lived in the state for seven years.