In Our View: Madore Gets it Right

Two recent proposals regarding Clark County’s relationship with public employee unions are worthy of consideration and should be adopted. Councilor David Madore has brought forth separate resolutions that would: Open to the public collective bargaining negotiations between the county and employees; and institute a local right-to-work policy that would ban unions from compelling public employees to pay dues as a condition of their employment.

Not that the ideas are without controversy. Tuesday’s council meeting brought forth the kind of vitriol that Madore and fellow Councilor Tom Mielke have grown accustomed to through a series of issues that have served to divide this community. And while we lament their penchant for seeking out controversy, Madore’s latest proposals pass the standards of fairness and of effectively representing his constituents.

We will start with the matter of opening collective bargaining negotiations to the public, an issue that also is a topic of discussion at the state level and one that The Columbian has supported editorially. Consider the nature of negotiations between public unions and public officials, and consider how they differ from labor negotiations at private companies. When union leaders and government representatives sit down at the negotiating table, the biggest stakeholder is not present: The taxpayers.

Union officials are, rightfully, interested in striking the best possible deal for the members they represent, striving for increased pay and improved benefits and ideal working conditions. Government officials, meanwhile, have a vested interest in keeping employees happy; in maintaining labor peace; and in demonstrating that they can keep the wheels of government turning smoothly. And unlike the private sector, government worries little about the bottom line or even having to stay afloat. Government always has a way to get more cash — raise taxes.

Taxpayers are the ones who are handed the bill at the end of the negotiations, and yet they have no input or even knowledge of the matter until after the fact. Opening negotiations will best serve the people who matter the most in the discussions — those who are paying for them.

As for a local right-to-work proposal, the details are a bit stickier. The Columbian editorially has supported a growing national movement toward such laws, suggesting that unions for too long have been allowed to compel employees to become dues-paying members. This amounts to little more than extortion on the part of organized labor, allowing unions to wield a stick in forcing workers to join.

A carrot would be much more fair to employees. Opponents of right-to-work laws point to the many worker benefits that have been culled through the power of organized labor, but this only demonstrates that unions should be able to influence workers into joining, rather than compelling them to.

The stickiness comes through federal law that allows all employees to benefit from gains negotiated by unions, whether or not the employee is a member of the organization. As more and more states — and local governments — adopt right-to-work policies, Congress should rethink legislation that extends negotiated benefits to nonunion members. Allow unions to represent those who choose to sign up, and then let the unions stand on their merits in selling their virtues to prospective members.

While Madore’s proposals will serve as yet another wedge issue to fragment the community, they stand in contrast with many of his previous actions. This time he’s right.