Our View - Thursday

Union made

Ritter throws bone to his political backers

For the second time in less than a year, Gov. Bill Ritter has gotten into political trouble by throwing a bone to his labor union friends. In this case, however, he didn’t just throw them a bone, but a sirloin steak, by granting state employees de facto collective bargaining powers in an executive order issued late in the afternoon of Nov. 2.

Contributing to the backlash this time around is the secretive, unilateral way the political payoff was orchestrated, and the slick, Clintonesque way the governor has tried to spin the issue by playing semantics.

He has downplayed the order’s impact, denying that he was giving state employees collective bargaining rights or the right to strike. Ritter also explained, rather weakly, in an op-ed published in the Nov. 7 Gazette, that the new “partnership” between “certified employee organizations” and managers will bring more efficiency and innovation to government operations.

The unions certainly seem to think they gained something significant, judging from the postcard the Colorado Association of Public Employees sent to state employees, claiming a “win” for “the freedom to negotiate for better jobs and reliable public services.” No one, it’s true, is using the term “collective bargaining.” But this clearly is a step in that direction. What is collective bargaining if not the “freedom to negotiate for better jobs”?

Even the Denver Post recognized this as a blatant payoff to unions, ripping into the governor in a rare front-page editorial. “When Coloradans elected Bill Ritter as governor, they thought they were getting a modern-day version of Roy Romer, a pro-business Democrat. Instead, they got Jimmy Hoffa,” read the editorial in part. “Ritter campaigned under the guise of a moderate ‘new Democrat’ but now we know he’s simply a toady to labor bosses and the old vestiges of his party — a bag man for unions and special interests.”

Ritter’s critics point out that there’s little need for enhanced union influence, since Colorado state employees rank ninth in the country in terms of pay and make 25 percent more than counterparts in neighboring states.

In addition, the order excludes supervisors from newly created “partnership units,” clears a path for unions to achieve exclusive bargaining rights and mandates that departments negotiate “in good faith” with the “certified employee organizations.” Perhaps this doesn’t meet some legal definition of “collective bargaining,” but it certainly gives workers and unions powers they lacked previously.

Even less credible is Ritter’s assertion that the new “partnerships” will lead to efficiency and innovation in government. There’s absolutely nothing preventing rank-and-file workers from bringing their better government ideas to the attention of managers right now.

A similar partnership between federal workers and federal managers was announced during the Clinton years, as part of Al Gore’s effort to “reinvent government.” But while this succeeded in muting union hostility to the Clinton initiative, it produced nothing that we’re aware of, in terms of freeing federal agencies from the grip of inertia and inefficiency.

Galling to many is the fact that Ritter hatched the scheme in secret and bypassed the Legislature. But taking that route would have meant debating the change, resulting in controversy and possible defeat. Ritter couldn’t afford to take that chance.

Readers may recall that, in the first major controversy of his tenure, Ritter reluctantly vetoed a union shop bill under intense pressure from the business community, much to the frustration of his big labor supporters. Ever since, he’s been looking for ways to redeem himself in union eyes.

Ritter couldn’t take the chance that union unrest might mar the Democratic National Convention next year, so he threw a key Democratic Party constituency this bone.

The Democratic National Convention will last about a week. But the unfortunate impacts of this executive order will be felt by Coloradans for many, many years to come, unless the Legislature musters the will to debate the matter out in the open and attempts to reverse the damage Ritter has done.

Memorial strays from health care mission

It’s no secret that we’re no fans of the city providing police and other services free of charge to events taking place here. For years, the policy was for the city to pony up for such services for nonprofit events. Then, after a dust-up between city officials and the Colorado Springs Balloon Classic in 2005, the policy changed. These days, organizers must show their event will have a positive economic impact for the city to provide services for free. The policy applies to forprofit events. That’s why Colorado Springs is shelling out $157,000 to provide services for the 2008 U.S. Senior Open at The Broadmoor.

Although we disagree with government subsidizing private ventures, we understand the reasoning behind it. As The Gazette reported last month, “Backers say the weeklong event means $30 million in economic impact — $500,000 alone in restaurants, not to mention 7,000 hotel room nights, shopping, cabs, gasoline and other spending.

“At the city’s tax rate of 2.5 percent, $30 million translates to $750,000 million in tax money — nearly five times the city’s contribution.” If one were in the investment business, that would be a nice return.

So what’s behind Memorial Hospital’s contribution of $250,000 for the event? A hospital spokesperson wrote in an e-mail to The Gazette, “We see it as a great way to provide visibility for Memorial.” Why does Memorial need visibility with the U.S. Open crowd? Visitors are unlikely to ever use Memorial and local attendees already know about it.