Vermont voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to give collective bargaining constitutional protection, including a restriction on future laws banning certain union-security agreements. The proposed text, reviewed in Monday’s coverage by Vermont Public, presents a statewide choice about how firmly labor rights should be protected against future legislative changes.
Proposal 3 would add Article 23 to the state’s Declaration of Rights. Employees could organize or join a labor organization and negotiate through an exclusive representative they choose over wages, hours, working conditions and workplace safety. The legislative text also bars adoption of laws that interfere with or reduce those bargaining rights. This is a proposed constitutional guarantee, not a negotiated employment contract.
What changes—and what does not
Collective bargaining already exists under Vermont law. For example, the state-employee statute recognizes organizing and bargaining rights. A separate contract provision says neither party must accept the other’s proposals and sets out a legislative funding process for covered state agreements. Those provisions illustrate the difference between a right to negotiate and an agreed outcome: the amendment’s text specifies no wage increase or benefit package.
The proposal would also protect agreements between employers and unions that make membership a condition of employment against state laws prohibiting them. The Vermont AFL-CIO, which supports the measure, says that would prevent a future Vermont right-to-work law. Such laws prohibit union-security arrangements; they are different from laws establishing whether workers may organize at all. VTDigger’s reporting describes that distinction and the measure’s limits under federal law.
Competing arguments
Supporters describe constitutional protection as a safeguard against future erosion of bargaining rights. Opponents see an unnecessary restriction on future lawmakers. In an Oct. 1 published commentary, Fiscal Alliance Foundation Vermont director Elizabeth Brown argued that the proposal would remove legislative flexibility and could put existing labor restrictions in dispute. Those are arguments about potential consequences, not outcomes established by the ballot text.
Federal limits would remain important. In legislative testimony, constitutional law professor Peter Teachout supported the proposal while explaining that conflicting federal law would prevail. He also identified the Supreme Court’s Janus decision, restricting compulsory public-sector union fees, as a constitutional constraint. The AFL-CIO likewise acknowledges that the amendment would not supersede federal law.
Coverage is another unresolved implementation issue. VTDigger reported that Rep. Emilie Krasnow, a supporter, said workers outside existing statutory protections, including agricultural workers, would need judicial involvement or a statutory change to gain organizing rights through the amendment. That qualification matters when assessing claims of immediate workplace changes.
For voters, the immediate question is whether to add that constitutional protection—not whether to approve a particular union contract. The proposal’s effective-date clause makes adoption conditional on voter ratification in November 2026; the AFL-CIO’s ballot guidance identifies the election as Nov. 3. It has not yet become part of the constitution.
