Bills would shine light on negotiations between state, union

By Matthew Hayward

Under current law, Washington’s governor can engage in secret, closed-door contract negotiations with more than 25 unions whose impact on taxpayers equals hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer expenses.

The problem is these same unions contributed to the governor’s campaign to $5.8 million dollars.

There is clearly a conflict of interest in allowing elected officials to negotiate how to spend tax dollars with their campaign contributors, especially during secret meetings. Notwithstanding the fact our current governor promised salary increases even before negotiations ever started, what kind of negotiating is that?

In 2002, a law passed under Gov. Gary Locke that exempts state negotiating sessions from the Open Public Meetings Act. This means state-level collective bargaining is not required to be done in public. On the other hand, nothing is saying they couldn't be.

It’s time to turn on the cameras and microphones and hold our representatives accountable. Taxpayers cannot continue to be locked out of every aspect of the process, with the exception of writing the checks.

While elected officials are ultimately accountable at the ballot box, having an educated electorate is necessary but impossible when business is conducted in secret.

Who are the naysayers opposing transparency, and do they have good arguments?

1. Politicians are intimated by the union’s ability to influence elections; this causes a default reaction of being squeamish when it comes to anything that might not be favored by the union bosses.   
2. Union bosses oppose any proposals that would allow employees choice. They wish to negotiate in secret, even with their members. They've also fought – and continue to fight – to hide their collective bargaining contracts once negotiated.

Politicians do have a good argument. The undue influence of the unions is second to none. According to Opensecrets, more than two-thirds of the top 15 “heavy hitters of all time” are unions. Within the top four, over $300 million of union dues were spent on elections.

In 2012, unions spent nearly $6 million in Washington state for the gubernatorial race. Now that their candidate is in office, those unions are cashing in on their investment. With that spending power and influence, no politician or candidate wants to be on the wrong side of the union bosses.

Creating transparency would force both sides to take pragmatic positions. It would also let the public know immediately if one side was being unreasonable in its demands or submitting to massive campaign donations.

Calling for transparency is a very minimal request. Sen. John Braun (R-Centralia) has introduced SB 5329, which would “Open meetings for collective bargaining.”

This bill would require bargaining meetings to be open to the public. Meanwhile, 26th District Sen. Jan Angel and Rep. Jesse Young have co-introduced legislation that would provide a mechanism for public employees to de-authorize forced union dues.

 

It’s unlikely either of these bills will make it through the Democrat-dominated House this year, but that doesn't mean we can’t start the process locally. Counties and cities should consider transparency as a good government practice. It’s better to open things up now rather than wait for people to start questioning their local commissioners and council members who negotiate with unions who have endorsed them in the past election.

Most people will have no interest in these meetings. But there will be comfort in knowing they are open and can be viewed or requested if there is a problem. We can only guess and blindly trust politicians and influential interest groups that meet secretly.

Matthew Hayward is the grassroots coordinator for the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan Olympia-based action tank promoting free markets and smaller, more transparent government.