Collective Bargaining for State Employees

It is "impossible to bargain collectively with the government." George Meany, President, AFL-CIO, 1995.

One of the governor’s highest priorities is to sign into law a bill expanding collective bargaining for state employees. Existing state law already allows state employees to collectively bargain with respect to grievance procedures and personnel matters. Governor Locke now wants to expand this to include wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. EFF has identified the following problems with the governor’s proposal.

1. It changes the constitutional balance of power. In effect this bill would shift about 30% of the state budget from legislative control to the control of the governor. The legislature’s role would shift from determining state salaries and benefits based on available revenue and program obligations to voting "yea" or "nay" on funding for a total labor package negotiated by other parties. In 1965 Governor Dan Evans vetoed a similar bill because he considered it an improper delegation of legislative authority.
2. It expands the role of special interests:

   ... in elections: Rather than spreading campaign funds over large numbers of candidates, the unions would have enormous incentive to become large donors (direct and indirect) in the gubernatorial race, knowing they would be negotiating directly with the governor for their employment package.

   ... in policymaking: Lawmakers currently consider an entire range of factors when deciding state employee compensation, such as the overall revenue stream, project costs, spending limitations, and the relative positions of other employees, such as teachers. In the proposed bill, none of this context must be considered. The public sector unions will get a deal somewhere between what they want and what management offers, regardless of how much money is available. Spending caps will be breached, or money will be taken from other programs to provide the negotiated increase. (Remember, K-12 and higher education make up the bulk of the budget.)

3. Public sector unions have no bottom line (no need to make concessions). In the private sector, realities of the marketplace generally bring balance to labor negotiations, but in the public sector, no such balance exists. Concerns about business failures limit most unreasonable private-sector labor demands, but public sector unions have no reason to make concessions, no matter what the fiscal condition of the public employer. Hawaii is a good example of this. Public sector union demands have been strong, despite a floundering Hawaiian economy. Lawmakers will be forced to raise taxes or cut other services not dependent on current labor contracts.
4. Collective bargaining for public employees has not improved the economy, effectiveness or efficiency in states where it has been implemented. Governing Magazine and Syracuse University’s Maxwell School evaluated management performance of the states. Their February 1999 report showed 22 states permit collective bargaining over wages and benefits, and 27 do not. The report reserves special criticism for union obstructionism in four low scoring states: Rhode Island, New York, Alaska, and Hawaii saying [unions] "often stand in the way of tying pay or bonuses to performance, preferring seniority rules that guarantee equity but stifle efficiency."
5. Adversarial relationship of unions. In the 22 states permitting state employee collective bargaining over wages and benefits, relations between state managers and the workers have not improved. Union leaders view the employer-employee relationship as adversarial and are quick to tell their members that, without the power of the union, the individual would be helpless against management.
6. The contracting-out provisions are not worth the paper they are printed on. In order to get the necessary votes to pass this legislation, the governor has stated that he will support contracting-out of services. This is a worthless trade-off since the legislation does not repeal the existing virtual ban on contracting-out (RCW 41.06.380). Washington state has the strongest legal ban against contracting out of any state in the nation.

In addition, the governor’s proposal makes contracting-out subject to collective bargaining. If the bill is passed, collective bargaining goes into effect no later than July 1, 2002, but no agency can contract-out until July 1, 2003. So, both virtual bans on contracting-out remain, as does the likelihood that unions will demand contracting-out plans be shelved once the collective bargaining process begins.

In effect, the proposed law says: Give state employees full collective bargaining rights in exchange for making most contracting-out illegal, with the rest subject to union approval. Such a deal!

Prepared by Bob Williams, Senior Research Analyst, (360) 956-3482 or effwa@effwa.org

Evergreen Freedom Foundation P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: (360) 956-3482, Fax: (360) 352-1874 Email: effwa@effwa.org