Collective-bargaining bills can spur debate

Some Republicans in the Missouri Legislature have proposed bills that would limit the impact of Gov. Bob Holden's executive order extending collective bargaining rights to 30,000 state workers. None of the bills seeks to undo the governor's order. But a sense of fairness is at the heart of each of the three bills.

Although the bills may get through the state Senate, it is unlikely any of the three proposals will get serious consideration in the Democrat-controlled House. Even if they did, a veto from the governor would be expected.

Thus, the three bills offer little more than a starting point for ongoing discussions and debates around the state over the whole issue of collective bargaining for state employees.

It is no secret that the Southeast Missourian has editorially opposed the unionization of state employees. Even though we have heard repeated assurances from labor organizations and the Holden administration that collective bargaining would never lead to a strike by state employees -- something that is expressly prohibited -- the likelihood of work stoppages, slowdowns and blue flu goes up when a group of employees is handed collective-bargaining rights. By whatever name you call it, public employees who don't do their jobs to make a bargaining point are shortchanging the taxpayers who foot their salaries.

One of the bills would allow state departments to exempt some employees -- human resources workers, professional workers, security guards and Capitol police, park rangers -- from union eligibility. Another would require a majority of workers in potential bargaining units to endorse union certification instead of only a majority of those voting, as is the current practice.

Both of these bills are weak efforts to thwart the overall thrust of the governor's order. Exempting certain employees would be a messy business for legislators, since the governor's order covers only those state employees that come under the executive branch of government. And changing the rules on certification votes would fly in the face of just about every election in which ordinary citizens participate. Think of all the bond issues and tax increases that have been approved in small-turnout elections where a majority of a small percentage of registered voters ruled the day.

The bill that makes sense is the one that would prevent the forced deduction of union service fees from the paychecks of any state worker who chooses not to be a union member. This, of course, is just one step removed from the right-to-work concept that many states -- but not Missouri -- have adopted. Right-to-work states extend that same protection from forced union dues to all workers.

Let's hope these issues are discussed widely and prominently in Senate hearings as a way of educating Missourians in general about the effect of Holden's executive order. If enough taxpaying voters agree that collective bargaining for state employees is bad, the order can be reversed.