Unions: Minority rule
Posted in Dangerous Politics by R Lee Wrights on October 6th, 2008 by Ben DeGrow
Some pundits and hopeful partisans speculate that our upcoming national election may see less apathy among younger voters. Coloradans might also wonder about the apathy among their state employees.
Forty-nine percent of Americans between 18 and 29 voted in the 2004 national election, a slight rise from previous showings. While at least one candidate has made more appeals to the youth on the bases of “hope” and “change,” it’s unclear whether the trend will continue.
Overshadowed recent news in our own backyard shows even greater voter apathy outside the sphere of electoral politics. When faced this year with deciding on union representation, two-thirds of state workers never cast a vote. Fewer than one in four affirmatively chose the union. All are stuck with the result.
It’s not easy to explain such tremendous apathy. Perhaps it’s because Colorado state government employees already are the 9th-highest paid nationwide. Most make wages comparable to or greater than their private sector counterparts.
Nevertheless, union election participation union election had a direct impact on state employees’ personal interests. And with hundreds rather than millions casting ballots, an individual worker’s vote held more clout than any vote for U.S. President will.
Based on their job classification, 32,000 state workers across Colorado were eligible to participate in one of eight separate mail-in ballot elections to decide whether union leaders should represent them in all matters of compensation, grievances, and workplace conditions. The last two elections were decided on August 12.
Gov. Bill Ritter’s November 2007 executive order made the entire exercise possible. According to the order, a simple majority of votes cast in each occupational group decides the election. The “Colorado WINS” union organizing coalition prevailed in seven elections. A different group won the eighth vote to represent 700 state troopers.
Despite the low response, it’s easy to argue the unions fairly won a democratic process. Just like the Presidential election, every eligible person was given a chance to vote. Whether it’s college students or state workers, the fault is theirs if they didn’t participate. Right?
Not so fast. There’s more to the story: namely, two distinct and important differences between national elections and union elections like those recently held among Colorado state employees.
First, in national elections, Republicans and Democrats battling head-to-head each have a strong, shared interest to defeat the other. Because both John McCain and Barack Obama stand to gain much from a November victory, they assure at least two sides to the debate.
In union elections, though, a well-funded and entrenched coalition like Colorado WINS essentially stands on its own to make its case. Thirty percent of workers in a unit had to sign a WINS card for the election to take place. Union organizers sent multiple flyers, made numerous phone calls, and even approached some employees at work. While most state employees work in Denver, others received direct contact on their job sites in other parts of the state.
The closest to an organized opposition was thrown together on a shoestring, and it only emerged after six of the eight elections had been decided. Operating on his own initiative under the tongue-in-cheek name “Colorado LOSES,” state employee David Ohmart sought to tell his colleagues to think carefully about what union representation would entail and that sitting out the vote only helped WINS.
Evidence suggests Ohmart’s catchy personal emails and homemade poster (which briefly stayed on the office bulletin board) may have made some difference. More workers participated in the last two WINS elections than the first five, with closer results. In fact, less than 30 percent of the total yes votes-but more than half the total no votes-were cast after Ohmart’s campaign.
Second, regularly scheduled elections give Americans the chance to vote for a new president. After four years, either Obama or McCain will have to run for re-election if he wants to stay in office. Our Constitution sets the limit to two terms.
But exclusive union representation offers no guarantee of a future election. If enough employees decide they want WINS out, an unorganized opposition has to collect signatures from 30 percent of eligible employees just to hold an election.
Under the terms of Ritter’s order, such a decertification election cannot be held for at least two years after a representative is voted in, or until 90 days before a three-year union bargaining agreement expires. Those workers who don’t like the representation must grin and bear it. At least for now, both the governor and WINS officials have assured state employees they won’t be required to pay union tribute to keep their jobs.
If enough state workers grow dissatisfied with union representation, they still will have to overcome more than apathy just to ask their colleagues whether the union should be voted out.
Ben DeGrow is a policy analyst for the Independence Institute, a free market think tank located in Golden.
Originally published by The Independence Institute August 30, 2008.
© 2008 The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536
