Op-Ed: Before Voting on Prop 3, Vermonters should know what it really does
September 10, 2026 | By Clara Morrison
This November, Vermonters will vote on Proposal 3 – or “Prop 3” – a constitutional amendment advertised as protecting the right to collectively bargain. But Vermont workers already have that right. The First Amendment protects workers’ ability to assemble, associate, and join a labor union if they choose.
What Prop 3 would actually do is far more consequential. It would permanently prohibit Vermont from adopting a right-to-work law for private-sector employees and bar future laws that “interfere with, negate, or diminish” collective bargaining rights.
That language could limit lawmakers’ ability to adopt policies such as allowing workers to cancel dues deductions at any time or ending the practice of requiring public employers to collect union dues.
More importantly, Prop 3 could shift power from elected lawmakers to union contracts. If a future law conflicts with a collectively bargained provision, courts could be asked whether the law improperly interferes with constitutionally protected bargaining rights, and union contracts could end up superseding state law, giving unions more power than the Legislature itself.
To understand why unions support Prop 3, it is important to understand what changed after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. For more than four decades, public-sector unions in non-right-to-work states could charge “agency fees” to workers who declined union membership but were covered by union contracts. Then, the court ruled that forcing public employees to subsidize a union’s negotiations with the government amounted to compelled political speech, and violated their First Amendment rights. By 2023, roughly 22% of public employees had opted out, representing about 1.2 million fewer dues-paying employees than would have been expected without the decision.
Prop 3 is largely the private-sector unions’ response to that loss of guaranteed revenue. The amendment would permanently prevent Vermont lawmakers from considering policies that give workers more choice, permanently stripping them of the freedom to decide whether a union continues to earn their support.
Besides the compelled-speech argument, there are also economic reasons to preserve flexibility. In 2021, a Harvard study examined counties on opposite sides of right-to-work borders and found that right-to-work status was associated with higher population growth, stronger employment outcomes, a larger manufacturing presence, lower unemployment, lower poverty, and greater upward mobility. For a state facing population decline, an aging workforce, and the loss of younger workers, permanently removing a policy option associated with economic growth is a significant risk.
Vermont already has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation and faces growing costs for healthcare, pensions, and public employee compensation. When government unions negotiate wages and benefits, taxpayers ultimately pay the bill.
Prop 3 could make it harder for future legislators to respond when those obligations become unaffordable, giving union leadership greater power to preserve costly contract terms than elected officials have to change them.
Healthcare is one example. Vermont is already facing rising public employee healthcare costs. Arizona recently explored replacing its traditional public employee health plan with Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements (ICHRAs), which provide workers with a fixed benefit they can use to purchase coverage that best fits their needs. Whether or not that approach is right for Vermont, lawmakers should retain the ability to consider new solutions as healthcare costs continue to rise.
The same applies to pensions. Even after several years of reform, the Vermont State Teachers’ Retirement System is only 63% funded, while the State Employees’ Retirement System is about 73% funded, leaving billions in unfunded liabilities. With a large share of state employees approaching retirement eligibility, Vermont will need every available tool to address long-term obligations.
Illinois -- the only other state to constitutionalize collective bargaining rights this broadly -- offers a cautionary example. Its constitutional protections have made pension reform extremely difficult, leaving taxpayers responsible for roughly $143 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, the worst in the nation.
Prop 3’s broad language could also create years of uncertainty as courts determine how its new constitutional protections interact with state and federal labor law, a question Illinois is also facing. Small employers could face litigation over whether workplace policies interfere with bargaining rights, and the state could be forced to defend the amendment against legal challenges. Taxpayers would ultimately bear those costs.
Constitutional amendments are difficult to undo. The law can be changed when circumstances change, but a constitutional provision cannot. Vermont workers already have the right to organize. What Prop 3 would take away is the ability of future voters and legislators to decide how Vermont’s labor laws should evolve.
Before permanently giving up that flexibility, Vermonters should ask whether they are comfortable putting these decisions beyond the reach of future lawmakers.
Jericho resident Clara Morrison is the executive director of Right for Vermont Foundation.