Labor pains for Colorado

By Mike Rosen

Friday, November 16, 2007

Gov. Bill Ritter has nudged Colorado one step closer to a collective bargaining compact with unions representing government employees. Rather than a payoff to big labor for their moral and financial support during his campaign, the governor creatively terms this a "partnership" with dedicated and conscientious government workers.

That Ritter implemented this new policy through the back door by executive order rather than asking the legislature to address it by law is a measure of how controversial he recognizes this to be.

The last thing Democrats wanted was an open debate in the next legislative session. The governor got them off the hook, saving them from going on record with a party line, pro-union vote.

In an e-mail to all state employees, Ritter treaded oh so carefully, emphasizing the limited nature of this new arrangement regarding strikes, agency fees and binding arbitration - all the things it doesn't allow . . . yet! Knowing this letter would be made public, it might have appeared unseemly to be verbally popping champagne corks with union leaders and their new recruits.

No one who understands the quid pro quo of politics can be surprised by this move. As I've explained many times, party trumps person. Bill Ritter is no left-wing radical but he is a Democrat, and big labor is a powerful force in his party's coalition. Unions opened their wallets and labored mightily to help Democrats win the governorship and majorities in both houses of the state legislatureo it was inevitable that the favor would be returned - especially to public-sector unions whose membership votes overwhelmingly for Democrats and whose power has been growing while private-sector unions have been in decline for decades.

Pay, benefits, job security and a fabulous PERA pension plan have Colorado's state workers living relatively high off the hog compared to their counterparts in neighboring states and the national average. That's why the Rocky Mountain News called Ritter's new policy "a solution in search of a problem."

No one opposes productive cooperation with state workers, but they don't have to be union members for that to happen. Many civil servants are diligent and creative individuals, but government unions act collectively. And, like any union, their first priority is what's good for the rank and file, not customers, employers, taxpayers or "partners."

Unions discourage competition among their members. Individual excellence that might show up less-motivated workers is frowned upon. Unions promote work rules that undermine productivity. Elections for union leadership positions favor firebrands and demagogues who exaggerate grievances and outbid rivals in an auction for better pay and conditions. Job security and tenure take precedence over customer service. Think of that grump behind the counter at the motor vehicle office. As Winston Churchill noted, after awhile civil servants tend to become no longer servants and no longer civil.

In areas where government enjoys a monopoly, public-sector unions are worse than unnecessary, they're dangerous. When they strike, they can hold the public hostage, shutting down entire sectors. Private-sector unions are constrained by a company's ability to recover its costs from customers who are free to take their business to a competitor. Public-sector unions have no such constraint, knowing government can't go out of business and has the power to tax its "customers."

That's why Margaret Thatcher denationalized industries in Britain in the '70s and '80s. Newly-elected French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, seeking to rein in arrogant government employee unions, is already being threatened with massive strikes.

There's a lesson here for us. Ritter's assurance that state workers will be prohibited from striking is unassuring. New Yorkers have been often afflicted by illegal public employee strikes, slowdowns or sickouts, followed by union demands for amnesty.

The governor's executive order is the first stage of bad public policy that, if not reversed, Coloradans will come to sorely regret.