ORDER WILL MEAN BETTER STATE SERVICES

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- This is in response to Jon Rust's July 11 column, which dealt with the executive order on collective bargaining recently issued by Gov. Bob Holden. Whether intentional or not, Rust was misleading and left out key facts. I would like to set the record straight.

Rust referred to a meeting of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce in Cape Girar-deau. At that meeting, the chamber demonized the order for collective bargaining. What Rust failed to mention was that not only does the chamber oppose collective bargaining for state employees, it also opposes collective bargaining for all workers, both public and private.

This order is important to both our citizens and our state employees. Without the knowledge and hard work of these state employees, Missouri would be a far worse place to live. Some of the best ideas for improving the way government works and for improving the quality of services the public receives come from the employees themselves. Prior to this order, state employees had no way of ensuring that their voices would be heard. This order gives them a chance to be heard and a chance to have their ideas put into practice.

Nowhere in this order does Holden force unionization on state employees. While the governor's order means a new structure to make bargaining substantive, the decision to take advantage of such an opportunity is still up to the employees themselves. Should state employees vote for union representation, they'll be able to negotiate positive changes to the way our state government works and for improving the quality of services received by the citizens of our state.

In regards to "fair share fees," the employees themselves will decide this issue. Employees will first decide if they want union representation. If a majority says yes, the employees will then have to decide if they want this included in their contract. Finally, the employees can vote to accept or reject a contract that contains a "fair share fee" clause.

The column mentioned the cost to the state of binding arbitration. The column doesn't mention that the order requires the cost associated with arbitration to be shared equally by both union and management alike. This sharing of costs results in mediated resolutions and even more prudent and fair management of employee relations.

To suggest that state employees take their complaints to their representatives or to the governor's staff is laughable. This is like having the chief executive officer of a corporation determine who sweeps the floor or mows the lawn at corporate headquarters.

Let me address another key fact left out by Rust. The members of the Missouri House and Senate, including those in Southeast Missouri, will still have the final say over the expenditures of state funds for state employees' compensation. The order did nothing to change that fact.

Rust mentioned that, in the past, the legislature had rejected collective-bargaining legislation. That occurred because the same distortions of the truth and fear tactics, like those used in Rust's column, have swayed the legislature not to approve collective bargaining.

Finally, the governor of Missouri has a constitutional right to issue an executive order. Our governor, as well as those of other states, has this right. In fact, the governor in Kentucky issued a similar order just a few weeks ago. More than 20 years ago, the governor in Illinois issued a similar order. In all, a majority of our states have some type of collective bargaining for state employees. The citizens of these states have been well-served by this, and our citizens will see positive results from this as well.

Herb Johnson is secretary-treasurer of the Missouri AFL-CIO.