Page 1
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s November 2007executive order that has introduced union represen-tation to state government through employee “part-nership agreements” is misguided. Under the termsof the order, unions can achieve “exclusive represen-tative” status. Collecting signatures from 30 percentof employees in an occupational unit is needed tohold an election. Unions win representation with amajority of ballots cast.On March 19, 2008, the Association of ColoradoState Patrol Professionals (ACSPP) won the first“partnership agreement” election, earning the rightto serve as “exclusive representative” of Colorado’s700 uniformed state troopers. The most active orga-nizing group has been the Colorado WINS unioncoalition. Elections to certify Colorado WINS asthe “exclusive representative” for five of the sevenremaining classes of state employees are currentlypending.The contradictions, omissions, and other fallaciespromoted by defenders of Ritter’s executive ordershow that the policy change really was not necessary. A full public debate before the change might haveaddressed the following issues more clearly:
•
The executive order clearly gave union lead-ers collective bargaining power:
Since unionscan act as “exclusive representatives” overstate employees, the argument that “employ-ee partnerships” are not “collective bargain-ing” is entirely inaccurate.
•
A failed union partnership in Californianursing homes largely has been ignored:
Thepartnership dissolved in 2007 as employeeconcerns remained ignored, and health careproblems were kept hidden from the public.
•
Union partnerships touted as successfulexamples are irrelevant:
The partnershipapproach has been found to bring someimprovements to workplaces embroiled inconflict-oriented union bargaining. But theseresults are not transferable to Colorado stategovernment, where collective bargaining didnot exist before the order was issued.
•
Research shows that unionization will notimprove Colorado government efficiency:
Progressive States Network (PSN) mischarac-terized a North Carolina State study by citingunion-friendly opinion as though it were theconsensus of academic research.
•
Prior partnerships in state governmentshow union representation is not needed:
Examples of labor-management cooperationin the Department of Transportation and alarge employee survey on cost-saving ideas were done without collective bargaining.Despite Ritter’s statements that his order wasdesigned to solve alleged inefficiencies, unionsleaders and others have advertised it as a meansto improve employee health insurance benefits.However, careful analysis likewise shows theseclaims to be exaggerated and misleading:
The Case for Unionizing State Government Unraveled:
Executive Order Not Needed, Exposes Citizens and Workers to Harm
IB-2008-A • April 2008
By Benjamin DeGrow, Education Policy Analyst
Issue Backgrounder
13952 Denver West Parkway
•
Suite 400• Golden, Colorado 80401
www.IndependenceInstitute.org
•
303-279-6536
Leave a Comment