The impact of changes in public-sector bargaining lawson districts’ spending on teacher compensation - Report - By Emma García and Eunice Han - April 29, 2021

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Connor

Legislative restrictions on public-sector collective bargaining rights enacted in Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, and Wisconsin in 2011–2012 significantly reduced school district spending on teacher compensation. Average spending fell about 6% overall, with teacher salaries down roughly 5% and teacher benefits declining by 9.7% in those five states relative to other states. The report argues these reductions can affect teacher labor markets and student outcomes and may foreshadow consequences related to the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages21

Reading Time53 min

AccessFree to download

Summary

Introduction

Janus decision and background

Study approach and purposes

Findings on compensation spending

The impact of changes in public-sector bargaining lawson districts’ spending on teacher compensation Report • By Emma García and Eunice Han • April 29, 2021 Summary What this paper finds: Legislative measures restricting public-sector collective bargaining rights enacted in Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, and Wisconsin in 2011 and 2012 significantly reduced school districts’spending on teacher compensation, including both teacher salaries and teacher benefits. The cuts in spending were sizable: In the years following the changes, average school district spending on teacher compensation decreased by about 6%, with spending on teacher salaries falling by about 5% and spending on teacher benefits declining by 9.7% in the five states relative to the rest of the states. Why it matters: Reduced education spending and lowered teacher compensation have negative repercussions for teacher labor markets and student outcomes. Teachers in the five states were affected regardless of union membership. The effects can be extrapolated to other states that have also experienced significant curbs to public-sector workers in recent years, and they may shed light on some consequences of the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Introduction The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) (referred to as Janus hereafter) prohibited state and local government worker unions from negotiating collective bargaining agreements with fair share fee arrangements. The court agreed with the plaintiff’s claim that the fair share fees (known also as “agency fees”) violate workers’ First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association. This dramatic legal change makes it harder for public-sector • Washington, DC View this report [at](at epi.org/221896)[ epi.org/221896](at epi.org/221896) unions to be effective.1 However, its full repercussions on membership, employment conditions, and other outcomes for public-sector workers remain to be investigated. Because the Janus decision is relatively recent, it is too early to assess its comprehensive impacts. However, we can anticipate the direction that Janus is taking us by examining legislation that was passed by several U.S. states in the last decade that also substantially restricted public-sector bargaining rights. Though the laws in Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, and Wisconsin lack the scale of the Janus decision, and though they differ from one another and from the substance and the legal focus of Janus, all have—like Janus—been described as an attack on unions’ membership and strength. In this report, we examine state collective bargaining restrictions on public-sector unionsand how they impact spending on teacher compensation. Specifically, we develop a framework to estimate how spending on teacher compensation was affected by changes in the legal institutions (laws, court decisions, and other administrative mechanisms) governing public-sector unions in five states that experienced these changes early in the previous decade. There are two purposes of this study. First, our framework and the analysis, with the necessary adjustments to scale, contexts, and timelines, could be used in the near future to understand and estimate the impact on public-sector workers of the Janus decision (or of laws, court decisions, and other administrative mechanisms of a similar nature) . Second, our results also set the stage for other important and broad questions regarding the affected education systems. These institutional changes that influence districts’ spending on teacher compensation may also shift the career decisions of individuals who otherwise may have chosen a teaching profession, and they may have implications for student outcomes. Thus, this study can help policymakers better grasp the role of teachers unions in the post-Janus era by explori

FAQs

Which states and years are examined in the report's analysis?

The report analyzes restrictions enacted in Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, and Wisconsin during 2011 and 2012.

How did teacher compensation spending change after the legal restrictions?

School district spending on teacher compensation decreased by about 6% on average, with teacher salaries down about 5% and teacher benefits down 9.7%.

Why does the report connect these findings to the 2018 Janus decision?

Because the Janus decision similarly restricts public-sector union bargaining by prohibiting agency fees, the report treats earlier state restrictions as evidence of potentially negative repercussions for comparable outcomes.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Connor