Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Ritter can restore trust with taxpayers by making 'partnerships' transparent

By Ben Degrow

Published November 24, 2007 at 11:29 p.m.

Text size  

Something is missing from Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order setting up procedures for the election of unions to serve as "exclusive representatives" of state workers: public accountability and transparency.

The least Coloradans should get is an open and public negotiation process. The order emphasizes "partnerships" between state officials and employees, but it does not discuss any "partnerships" with the taxpaying public.

Whether to improve customer service or to raise government employee salaries, the negotiation process is very much a public concern. If the state is to have the "partnerships" the governor intends, then all meetings between state officials and union leaders should be open. The public also should have access to all records of proceedings.

Making negotiations transparent would be a fair and simple act of good faith with the people of Colorado. Such a move has precedents elsewhere.

In neighboring Kansas, all negotiations between government officials and union leaders are done in public view. Florida insists on sunshine in all phases of its collective bargaining sessions, while government labor negotiations in Tennessee also are "open to the public." Other states have provided varying degrees of transparency to the public employee bargaining process.

Ritter has endured a lot of criticism for using backroom negotiations rather than public debate to develop and issue his executive order. By opening all the records and proceedings of state employee "partnership agreement" negotiations to the public, he could help overcome skepticism and restore confidence in his management of state government.

A transparent approach also could put the governor back on more solid ground with Coloradans. Along with labor leaders, the governor has sought to distinguish his "employee partnerships" from collective bargaining.

But "employee partnerships" clearly are a form of collective bargaining, defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "negotiation between organized workers and their employer or employers to determine wages, hours, rules, and working conditions." The union has told workers that salary and benefits are up for discussion.

Colorado state employees already earn more than comparable workers in the private sector, and more than their counterparts in neighboring states. But under Ritter's executive order, union negotiators will have greater incentive and ability to increase demands for salaries and benefits. More state workers losing a share of their pay to union dues means more workers expecting their representatives to negotiate for better compensation.

Ritter has vowed to retain final executive authority over negotiated matters that will affect the state budget. He has pledged that the "partnership" process will be "cost-neutral." Opening the entire negotiation process to public scrutiny would help keep him accountable to his promise.

No one working to improve customer service should have any reason to fear an open negotiation process. After all, Coloradans deserve to see everything that transpires in collective bargaining over their tax money.

Comments

  • November 26, 2007

    1:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    grandma writes:

    I am a state worker and agree with the majority of the opinions expressed here. We, as state workers need to be accountable to the state tax payers and transparency in any negotiations is imperative. I take exception to an opinion frequently expressed in all local media recently as to the high pay of state workers.

    On the official state website there is salary survey information from 2003. When that data is compared to the 2007 salary information for the workers in my unit, 80% of current staff is paid less than the median pay rate (25% - 40% of the pay range) for 2003! I personally do not even make the minimum 2003 salary for my job description. The exceptions are employees who have been with the state for 15+ years. These dedicated folks currently are paid around 60% - 75% of the pay range of 4 years ago. If you have proof that our salaries are above scale, name names. Be sure to include what we pay for PERA (8%) as opposed to the public's 6% for FICA as well as the lower state contribution to health insurance. Otherwise, please stop spreading the myth of overpaid state workers. The majority of us are here because we love our jobs and are proud to be serving the People of Colorado. It certainly isn't for the outstanding pay.

  • November 27, 2007

    1:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    Again we have to ask ourselves why the RMN is giving such a megaphone to a far right wing lobbying group like the Independence Institute. It wouldn't be as bad if they at least identified hit pieces as coming from such cesspools...but to try to cover up such evidence is borderline unethical.

    http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...

  • November 28, 2007

    9:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    I noticed the same thing Jay. It seems to me that if you work for the Independence Institute that it should be disclosed in the articlle. It also appears that they beat you with an ugly stick.

  • December 8, 2007

    2:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MereMortal writes:

    Notice how the liberals above have no arguments of substance to make. They simply attack the messenger. When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.