HOLDEN'S EDICT BIG BOOST TO BIG LABOR

Representatives from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce were in Cape Girardeau Monday for a public briefing, and the information they shared about Gov. Bob Holden's executive order for forced unionization of Missouri public employees was unsettling.

First, the policy itself.

Before Holden's executive order, public employees already had the right to join a union. But few did. Holden's order, however, establishes "fair share fees" so that nonunion workers must contribute to union coffers. Ostensibly, the forced payments are to pay for union negotiations that benefit nonunion employees. In fact, there is usually nothing fair about the compensation demanded from the nonunion worker, with much of the money going indirectly to political causes. (Although the figure is not official yet, Holden's order means state workers will pay approximately $19 to unions per month, whether they want to join one or not.)

Holden's order also establishes binding arbitration for salary disputes. Not only does binding arbitration represent an abysmal management decision, but through it Holden exposes the state to spiraling higher costs -- and not simply for higher payments to state workers. The very process of arbitration is costly. There are more than 30,000 state workers covered by Holden's order. It costs $600 to $800 a day to pay an arbitrator. You do the math.

Holden's argument was that state workers deserve the same rights to collective bargaining as any other class of employees. But Holden misses a fundamental distinction. State employees don't work for a company with competing stakeholders. State employees work for the people of the state, our governor and the state legislature. If workers have a complaint about pay, for example, they can bring it directly to their representative. They can bring their complaint to the governor's staff. They can bring it to the governor. Then these groups -- accountable to all the people are charged with making decisions in the best interest of the entire state, including the state worker.

Enabling state workers to strike, which is the inevitable consequence of Holden's order, not only threatens fiscal stability, but it skews the balance of power and endangers basic human services. Government has legitimate roles within enterprise, usually to keep the order, help the neediest or to benefit collectively the whole. Because of these charges -- and in part because of legal restriction -- there is often no private alternative. State workers on strike therefore wield disproportionate power, because striking state workers can put basic human services at risk.

(For those who want to point out that Holden did not legalize strikes for state workers, check out the quotes of at least one labor boss who's already chortled that workers don't have to be "on strike" to miss work en masse during negotiations. Examples from other states like Michigan indicate that illegal strikes go up after collective bargaining is enacted.)

But Holden's order is not only bad policy, it was enacted through bad process.

For years -- during Democrat-dominated legislatures -- collective bargaining has been discussed, and because it is wrong for the state, it has failed time after time after time. Until this year, that is, when the governor didn't even push a bill for the legislature to debate. Instead, he waited until the legislature was out of session and the rest of the state was preparing for a national holiday. Then he bypassed the people's representatives with the stroke of his pen.

Is his action legal? Many groups, including the state chamber of commerce, are scrambling to determine if it is. But if his action holds up, it's frightening. It begs the question: What other controversial issue will he decide to be God about next?

Our government was built with checks and balances. Holden's action on such a high-profile, controversial issue threatens our basic system.

So why did the governor do what he did?

Let's be frank. His first several months in office weren't the best. Not only was he criticized for his $1 million of inauguration expenses, but he was slow to present any sort of leadership on priority issues in the Capitol, seemingly preferring to jet around the state as a perk of his office. In fact, so weak was his leadership that those who helped to elect him, including Big Labor, refused to contribute to his inauguration fund.

A governor in such decline needs friends, and instead of reaching out to the people of Missouri by representing our best interests, he paid back Labor (and then some) by issuing his executive order for forced unionization. Presto magic: Labor is now relieving his inauguration debt (with no contribution limits), and Holden gains some powerful (and newly enriched) friends who now owe him.

Mind-boggling?

Unsettling.

Jon K. Rust is co-president of Rust Communications.