Union fees for state workers become reality

It is the latest in a series of sad developments for state workers -- and for the state government they serve -- following Gov. Bob Holden's executive order last summer that instituted collective bargaining for state employees.

Sadly, many of the predictions made last summer by opponents of this executive order are coming true.

The latest case in point concerns service fees, also called fair-share fees. These fees are charged by the unions for non-members. These fees are said by union officials and their supporters to represent the non-members' fair share for all the benefits provided to non-members by the union.

At $18 a month, the service fees are slightly less than the $23 monthly dues for full membership in the union. State officials working for the Holden administration have entered into negotiations with two unions representing some state workers concerning the fees.

The unions involved are the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Service International Employees Union.

What about workers who want no part of the union?

Holden isn't concerned about them. Where this issue is concerned, he is of the unions, by the unions and for the unions.

All these are alarming developments.

Collective bargaining for public employees represents a sharp turn away from representative government.

For more than 30 years, legislative battles fought out among the elected representatives of the people focused on collective bargaining. No General Assembly ever passed the bill and put it on the governor's desk for the signature that would have made it law.

This includes more than three decades of Democratic control of both the House and Senate, a one-party domination that ended in January 2001 with the election of the first Republican majority in the Senate since 1948.

Having failed to persuade Democratic majorities in the House and Senate to pass the bill, the unions got this governor to do their bidding with the stroke of a pen, by executive order.

Holden's action is bad policy, both procedurally and substantively, and is in need of legislative or judicial remedy.