Report: Florida Unions Milk Taxpayers for Millions Through 'Release Time'
Miami-Dade County spent more than $9 million over the past three years so county workers could do 300,000 hours of work for the benefit of public sector unions.

Taxpayers in Miami have spent more than $9 million over the past three years to pay union workers to do nearly 300,000 hours of work for the benefit of public sector unions.
Public sector union contracts usually include a provision allowing workers to step away from their typical job to do administrative work for their union while still being paid. The work done during so-called "release time" (known in some jurisdictions as "official time") ranges from mundane HR tasks to contract negotiations and filing complaints.
According to the Miami-Dade County "Leave Manual," employees are authorized to "participate in labor management committee meetings, collective bargaining sessions, the processing of an employee grievance, or other activities as specified by collective bargaining agreement."
In other words, union workers being paid with taxpayer money to do a public job are instead working for the benefit of a private organization. It's all perfectly legal, but a new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Florida-based James Madison Institute, a pair of libertarian think tanks, raises questions about whether the practice should be curtailed.
Worse than the expense, the report notes, is the lack of accountability for how union workers use their release time. In Miami-Dade County (the report also examined the cities of Tampa and Jacksonville), there is no official record-keeping of release time activities—making it impossible to determine if union members are straying from the list of approved activities. "The county's failure to track what activity public employees undertake while being paid by the taxpayer demonstrates a complete lack of both transparency and accountability over the practice," the authors note.
The practice of release time happens in other states too, but is increasingly coming under scrutiny. Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have proposed a bill to prohibit so-called "ghost teachers"—members of teachers unions who work full time for the union and never set foot in a classroom despite being paid by school districts—from accruing seniority and pension benefits. In Arizona, the state Supreme Court last year upheld the use of release time and ruled that it served a public purpose after several residents of the state and the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit challenging the practice as a violation of the state constitution's gift ban.
For some workers in Miami-Dade County, release time is all the time. The new report shows that county taxpayers spent more than $600,000 over the past three years on union workers who did work for the union 100 percent of the time they were on the job.
At that point, calling them "public workers" seems a bit of a misnomer.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It would be crazy to demand that government employees not be paid for off the clock hours and unions pay them for the union work they do.
Probably fascist and racist too.
It certainly would be unfair for unions to be expected to pay people doing union work instead of the people they're unionizing against to pay them instead. Hell, we should offer them MORE money for it.
One thing unions are good at- getting raises for people who barely do work.
In PA, the lobbyists for the teachers union as well as the lobbyists for the school boards association are eligible for the state's defined benefit teachers pension plan.
Lobbying is educational, so lobbyists are basically teachers.
If anything, they should include *all* lobbyists in their pension plan, not just education lobbyists.
/sarc
Nuke public sector unions from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.
"calling them "public workers" seems a bit of a misnomer."
That would be a rather loose usage of the word "work" even if they weren't providing services for a private organization.
I think the preferred term is the more ridiculous "public servants".
They're servants like Jeeves was a servant - that is, they consider themselves smarter than their bosses - unlike Jeeves they don't act in the boss's interest or show even outward signs of respect to the bosses.
Plus Jeeves actually *was* smarter.
So in sum, I probably shouldn't be dragging his name into this.
Public Shirkers.
Yes, I much prefer to go with the unloaded and straightforward term "government employees".
It's all perfectly legal
So what's the problem then?
Pubsec unions take taxpayer money and donate it to Democrats who give them raises. It's all perfectly legal. What's the problem?
+1 honest graft
You hate Democracy?
It's all perfectly legal
So what's the problem then?
Slavery was also legal.
That's the joke.
You'd think people would have learned by now that Hugh Akton is one sarcastic sonumabitch.
I do laugh at him all the time.
"...raises questions about whether the practice should be curtailed."
The answer is the practice ought to be illegal.
Unions should also be required to reimburse the taxpayers backpay for using taxpayers' resources (their paid employees) to do the work of the union.
What else do you want to prevent two groups from coming to a mutual agreement on? By force of law, no less.
Is that what libertarians want?
Maybe if REASON commenters realized that, even in public employment, there is hard bargaining between employer and employee when contracts are agreed upon.
Despite the delusional thinking that politicians - frequently professional negotiators - give everything to public sector employees, in exchange for a pittance of a donation, the fact is that governments want to pay their employees as little as possible.
What convinces voters to pull the lever for them is what is foremost in the minds of politicians.
Voters aren't convinced to support a candidate because the employees for the government are well paid.
The more a politician has to dole out from the budget for employee pay and benefits, the less they have to spend on vote-buying schemes.
Wait, so the employer has to pay the employee for time they spend working for the union? What a fuckin racket
It's worse than that, since the taxpayers are the ones paying for both government and union as they collude against the taxpayers.
What wasn't mentioned here, but has been in other articles, is that sometimes the work done is political campaigning.
Does this same thing happen in private sector unions? If so, then should public sector union be banned from it just because they are paid with taxpayer money?
I admit the whole thing is sketchy but it shouldn't make a difference if public or private.
There's a word for that, it's called featherbedding. They hire people to do nothing while getting paid. Sometimes there's not even an actual person getting paid.