Most state workers could be in union before June

DENVER - Nearly twothirds of Colorado's 32,000 state employees could be unionized by the end of May as labor organizers make an aggressive push to take advantage of an executive order by Gov. Bill Ritter.

It's unknown what effect the growing organization of workers could have on state government, but union proponents told The Gazette they hope to improve health benefits and pay.

The Nov. 2 executive order divides state workers into eight occupational groups representing areas such as financial services, health care services and professional services.

If 30 percent of the workers in any group sign petitions seeking an election, it allows them to vote on allowing one union to represent them in creating an "employee partnership agreement" with the state.

The group representing 709 Colorado State Patrol employees voted overwhelmingly last month to be represented by the Association of Colorado State Patrol Professionals.

Five of the other seven organization groups have submitted enough signatures to hold an election, which could be held by the end of April.

Colorado Springs Republican Rep. Bob Gardner, who has complained that unionized employees would demand greater compensation and strain the state's budget, was not surprised after what he called an aggressive push by union leaders.

Colorado WINS, a coalition of the Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, was formed to unionize all state workers.

Employees from several state departments who are collecting signatures said they have generally rallied co-workers to the cause by convincing them it will give them a bigger say in government.

"Personally, I want a voice. I feel like we have a lot to offer management," said Pat Kriebel, a program assistant in the Division of Child Care. "And sometimes what happens is the word from the front lines doesn't get up to the higher echelon."

Beyond a voice, though, workers cited the need for better pay and benefits.

Colorado is 49th in the country in employer contribution to state workers' individual health coverage. Water resources engineer Craig Lis said every married worker in his office uses their spouses' employers' insurance plan.

Meanwhile, state patrol Sgt. Mark Holt said salaries haven't kept pace with the living expenses for everyone in government during the past eight years.

Talk of increasing pay comes less than a month after economists predicted the state was headed into a downturn, and increasing employees' pay could lead to decreasing services, opponents said.

Kriebel and Sally Yerger, a civil rights division investigator, argued the state would not have to cut programs or increase taxes to raise salaries. It could work with employees to come up with ways to be more efficient and use those savings for acrossthe-board raises or bonuses to workers who save taxpayer money, Kriebel said.

Plus, turnover among state employees was 12.3 percent in 2006. Yerger, who said nine of the 12 investigators in her division have left during the past four years, argued that if the state can listen to employees and keep more from leaving, it would reduce hiring and training costs enormously.

"If you are looking at demoralized employees and tremendous turnover, that is costing you more than giving raises to employees," she said.

Ritter's order does not give binding arbitration to workers.

Ben DeGrow, a policy analyst with the conservative Independence Institute, argued, however, that permitting partnerships opens the door to further allowances, including binding arbitration.

Putting a layer of bureaucracy between employees and their managers also could serve to remove workers one step further from the taxpayers who are supposed to be their bosses, said Bob Culwell, a supervisor in the state Treasurer's Office who opposes unionization.

Culwell called the push heavy-handed - he said he knows of state workers who have gotten visited at home by union representatives - and the campaigning has been done by union organizers rather than employees.

"I believe it's in the realm of absolute metaphysical certitude that it could hurt taxpayers if this happens," Culwell said. "The union, by definition, would be standing between them and would be operating in the interests of its members and, therefore, to the non-benefits of citizens."

Unions outside the Colorado WINS pact question the coming elections, too.

The Teamsters, for example, began talking with corrections officers and employees at the Colorado Mental Health Institute more than three years ago, hoping to get a bill passed this year to allow collective bargaining with binding arbitration for the groups.

But Teamsters Local Union 455 was never asked for its input in creating what political director Ted Textor called the "topdown imposition of this whacko partnership agreement," and now Colorado WINS has filed to hold elections of the occupational groups that represent both of those groups of workers.

There is no blueprint for what happens after the elections if a majority of the employees that vote in them say "yes."

State patrol troopers, who backed unionization 3 to 1, are being polled on what they see as employment issues before the ACSPP sits down with state leaders to begin a process that could herald major changes in state government.