What Proposal 3 would permanently change — and why it matters beyond the ballot language.

When Vermont voters head to the polls in November 2026, they will see Proposal 3, a constitutional amendment described as establishing a “right to collectively bargain.”

The ballot language is short. The implications are not.

If approved, Proposal 3 would add yet another new Article to Vermont’s Constitution declaring that employees have the right to organize, join a labor organization, and bargain collectively through an exclusive representative of their choosing. It would prohibit the Legislature from passing any law that “interferes with, negates, or diminishes” that right. It would also bar the state from adopting laws that prohibit union-security agreements, including agreements requiring union membership as a condition of employment.

Because it amends the Constitution rather than state statute, Proposal 3 would be difficult to reverse once adopted.

The measure does not change current contracts or automatically alter existing workplaces. Its impact lies in what it would prevent future lawmakers from doing.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Right-to-Work Would Be Off the Table

Under federal law, states may adopt “right-to-work” statutes, which prohibit agreements requiring employees to join or financially support a union as a condition of employment.

Vermont is not currently a right-to-work state. Proposal 3 would ensure it cannot become one in the future. By constitutionally protecting union-security agreements, the amendment would foreclose that policy option unless voters later amend the Constitution again.

For supporters, that provides stability. For critics, it removes a significant lever of economic policy.

A Constitutional Ratchet

The most consequential language in Proposal 3 is the prohibition on laws that “interfere with, negate, or diminish” collective bargaining rights.

Collective bargaining in Vermont currently exists under statutory law. Statutes can be amended by a legislative majority and gubernatorial approval. Constitutional provisions require a multi-year amendment process and voter ratification.

If Proposal 3 passes, any future attempt by lawmakers to narrow bargaining scope, alter union-security rules, or otherwise adjust labor frameworks could face constitutional challenge. Disputes that are currently political could become judicial.

In practical terms, the amendment shifts labor policy from ordinary legislative debate to constitutional law.

Public Sector and Fiscal Flexibility

Vermont’s public workforce is heavily unionized, particularly in education and state government. During periods of fiscal stress, legislatures sometimes attempt to modify bargaining rules or limit negotiation topics in order to contain costs.

Proposal 3 would restrict that policy flexibility by elevating collective bargaining rights to constitutional status. While the amendment does not set wages or mandate specific compensation levels, it would limit lawmakers’ ability to narrow bargaining structures in response to budgetary pressure.

Supporters argue the measure simply ensures negotiation continues regardless of political shifts. Critics counter that embedding bargaining rights in the Constitution reduces policymakers’ options during economic downturns, potentially shifting cost pressures to taxpayers or other budget areas.

Dues Requirements: Public vs. Private

Current U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Janus v. AFSCME) prohibits governments from forcing public employees to pay union dues if they decline membership. In practical terms, a Vermont state employee can opt out of union membership and is legally protected from having dues compelled.

That federal constitutional protection does not apply the same way in the private sector. Under federal labor law, and in the absence of a state right-to-work statute, a unionized private employer can include a union-security clause in the contract. In that situation, employees who want to work there may be required — as a condition of employment — to pay union dues or fees.

Proposal 3 would constitutionally bar Vermont from ever adopting right-to-work legislation. That means the state could not stop private employers and unions from agreeing to dues requirements that bind new hires, even if those employees never voted for unionization.

This creates a structural difference: public employees retain a federally protected opt-out from dues, while private employees, under state law once Proposal 3 passes, would not have that same statutory protection.

Private Sector Implications

Most private-sector labor relations are governed by federal law under the National Labor Relations Act. Proposal 3 would not change federal organizing rules.

It would permanently eliminate Vermont’s ability to adopt right-to-work legislation, embedding a pro-bargaining framework in the Constitution and narrowing future policy options. That shift affects long-term business calculations.

Companies evaluating where to expand, build facilities, or add staff routinely compare labor flexibility, cost exposure, and regulatory stability across states. When a state embeds collective bargaining protections in its Constitution and forecloses future policy alternatives, it reduces flexibility and increases long-term labor-policy rigidity.

For businesses operating on thin margins or competing across state lines, that rigidity can matter. In practice, investment decisions are often incremental: an expansion goes to one state instead of another; a new division is built elsewhere; hiring occurs in a lower-cost region. Over time, those decisions translate into jobs that are not created locally or operations that shift outward.

By locking labor policy into the Constitution and removing right-to-work as a future option, it narrows the state’s ability to adapt and may influence whether employers choose to expand in Vermont or elsewhere.

Economic development decisions are rarely driven by a single variable. Yet labor cost structure and regulatory predictability are central components of long-term modeling. Constitutional rigidity can weigh heavily in those assessments, particularly in industries where labor cost exposure determines whether new jobs are created in Vermont or in another state.

Wages, Prices, and Cost of Living

Proposal 3 does not directly raise wages.

However, collective bargaining is designed to increase worker leverage in wage negotiations. If bargaining power increases in a sector, labor costs may rise.

In competitive private markets, higher labor costs can lead to one or more of the following: higher prices, reduced margins, reduced headcount, automation, or relocation.

In tax-funded public sectors, higher compensation costs typically translate into increased taxes, budget reallocations, or service reductions.

Economists differ on the magnitude of these effects. What is clear is that collective bargaining affects cost structures. Embedding those rights constitutionally reduces the likelihood of future policy changes designed to counterbalance those pressures.

Structural Asymmetry

Proposal 3 creates a constitutional right for employees to organize and bargain collectively. It does not create a parallel constitutional protection for employers.

Upper management and business owners are not eligible to join bargaining units in their own enterprises. The amendment protects one side of the labor relationship.

Courts have historically treated labor rights as permissible economic regulation rather than unconstitutional favoritism. Nonetheless, critics argue that elevating one side of a bilateral market relationship into constitutional law creates structural asymmetry that will be difficult to unwind.

A Voter Decision With Long-Term Consequences

Constitutional amendments are rarely undone. Voters are deciding whether Vermont’s labor framework should remain adjustable through ordinary lawmaking or become a permanent feature of the state’s governing document. That choice will influence not only labor relations, but the state’s economic direction for years to come.

For supporters, the amendment protects workers from future erosion of labor rights. For critics, it locks in a labor policy direction and narrows Vermont’s flexibility to respond to economic change.

The ballot question will be brief. The consequences will not.

Voters are not deciding whether collective bargaining exists in Vermont. They are deciding whether it should be placed beyond ordinary legislative reach. In a state already grappling with high costs, demographic pressures, and ongoing debates over economic competitiveness, that decision carries implications far beyond the wording of the amendment itself.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

#fyivt #vtpoli #vermontballot #proposal3

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!