Unions can't strong-arm state

So who works for who? Who’s in charge in this state? Is it the governor, the Legislature or is it the state employee unions?

Those unions recently filed an unfair labor practice claim alleging that the state acted in bad faith after Gov. Brian Schweitzer negotiated a labor deal that was subsequently rejected by the Republican-controlled Legislature. The deal involved pay increases of 1 percent in 2012 and 3 percent in 2013 for state employees and it would have cost $21 million over the two-year period.

It will be up to the Montana Labor Department’s Board of Personnel Appeals to make a ruling on the union claim. That can then be challenged in court by either side, and if the state gets an unfavorable ruling, it should definitely press the matter in court.

This is a matter of constitutional separation of powers. The executive branch can negotiate all it wants, but the legislative branch has the constitutional authority to control the state’s purse strings, and it cannot be forced to spend at the direction of the governor. In this case, the Legislature chose not ratify a labor agreement that state lawmakers had no hand in negotiating.

The unions, frankly, don’t have explicit constitutional powers. Yet they are taking the position that they can compel the Legislature, representing the people of Montana, to take a specific course of action. Let’s hope that’s not the case.

According to a report released in April 2010, Montana state government was the state’s No. 1 employer with around 21,500 employees and just over 5 percent of total employment. The federal government was the No. 2 employer. Combined with municipalities, government is the state’s largest employment sector. We ask again, who works for who? “The makers or the takers” is a harsh way of putting it, because a good number of government workers provide invaluable services.

But still, it is the private sector that generates wealth and it is the taxpayers of Montana, represented by the Legislature, who should determine what is and what isn’t affordable for the state.

The Montana labor union dispute is a different situation, but it involves frictions similar to those that arose in Wisconsin earlier this year when that state’s governor and legislative branch took action to curb union influence over government spending.

There were constant references in news reports to the state abrogating the unions’ “collective bargaining rights,” but those “rights” aren’t constitutionally enshrined. Like copyrights or trade rights, they are afforded to the unions by statute and case law. And in Wisconsin, lawmakers chose to adjust the state’s collective bargaining statutes.

Public sector unions should not be in a position to dictate state budgets there nor here in Montana.