To amend sections 9.81, 4117.09, and 4117.11 and to enact sections 4119.01, 4119.02, 4119.07, 4119.08, and 4119.99 of the Revised Code to prohibit any requirement that employees join or pay dues to an employee organization.
HB510 would prohibit employers and employee organizations from requiring workers to join a union or other employee organization, or to pay dues, fees, assessments, or similar charges, as a condition of employment or continued employment. The bill creates a new chapter of the Revised Code that defines “employer” and “employee organization,” bars mandatory membership and mandatory financial support, and voids any agreement that conflicts with those prohibitions. It also applies prospectively to agreements entered into, renewed, or extended on or after the bill’s effective date.
The bill also revises existing public-sector labor law provisions. It would amend collective bargaining rules to remove the current authorization for “fair share” fees and related payroll deductions, and it would prohibit public employers from agreeing to contract terms that require union membership as a condition of employment. In addition, it preserves certain payroll deduction language for charitable contributions and other authorized deductions, while repealing existing statutory language that currently allows mandatory nonmember payments in some public-sector bargaining arrangements.
HB510 would significantly change Ohio labor law by eliminating mandatory union membership and mandatory union-related payments for both public and private employment relationships covered by the bill. It would amend sections of Chapter 4117 governing public employee collective bargaining, repeal existing provisions that allow fair share fees, and add a new chapter providing civil remedies, attorney general enforcement, and criminal penalties for violations. Public employers, employee organizations, and employees in bargaining units would be directly affected, especially in workplaces where union-security arrangements or dues checkoff provisions are currently used.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests the bill is framed as a pro-worker choice or right-to-work measure by its sponsor, with an emphasis on voluntary participation and financial support. Because there are no committee transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials showing support or opposition beyond the bill’s stated purpose. The overall tone of the legislation is assertive and restrictive toward mandatory union dues and membership requirements.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s elimination of mandatory dues, fees, and membership requirements, which would be opposed by labor organizations that rely on collective bargaining arrangements and dues collection, and supported by advocates of employee choice and limits on union security agreements. Another likely dispute is the bill’s replacement of fair share fee provisions and its enforcement scheme, including private lawsuits, attorney general investigations, and misdemeanor penalties. The bill also raises questions about how it would interact with existing public-sector bargaining agreements and whether its restrictions would reduce union funding and bargaining leverage.