The political case for unionizing the Legislature’s workers

Of all the bills wriggling through the Capitol’s sausage machine, my favorite is AB 1577 – the one to unionize legislative employees. It should be one of yours, too.

 It’s the only way to stop the Legislature from using your tax dollars to campaign for people you don’t like.

Ask yourself, why should a Democrat’s tax dollars help elect Republicans – or vice versa?

Legislative leaders and campaign consultants may assure you legislative staff’s astonishingly generous campaign work is entirely voluntary, that no one is coerced.

Collective bargaining might end that. Politicians probably couldn’t intimidate a bargaining unit into volunteering for political campaigns with quite the ferocity they do now.

 Which could mean that if legislative leaders want an army of phone-talkers and door-knockers, they’d have to find them, not indenture them. Under a decent contract, politicians might be prevented from selecting their volunteers (who believe their livelihoods depend on it).

 Legislative leaders and campaign consultants may assure you legislative staff’s astonishingly generous campaign work is entirely voluntary, that no one is coerced. No one, according to the party line, forces or intimidates anyone to work on campaigns.

But that’s not true.

 Staff volunteers (read all staff) are told what they must donate each election cycle. For example, they might have to deliver three weekends of door knocking and four weeknights of phone calling – whatever leadership decides.

 It’s “volunteer” to the bosses, but it’s “voluntold” to the staff.

Ending that system – if they could – might be welcome relief for employees.

Because whatever leaders may say, in practice, it is a rare employee who refuses to volunteer, since they are led to believe their future in the Legislature depends on it. So you, the taxpayer, end up paying salaries for workers who have little choice but to advocate for whatever they’re told, in order to continue receiving the salaries you pay.

Staff pay nothing, or almost nothing, for health, dental and vision. Even co-pays are covered with annual stipends

Speaking of salaries, they tend to be pretty good – except at the bottom end. A bargaining unit would probably focus more on working conditions than pay, because compensation and benefits are so generous now it’s hard to imagine topping them in bargaining.

A union could lift up the lowest-paid workers, of course, giving them the kind of employment dignity so popular in talking points. But the expansive six-figure crowd would probably not expect a raise. And management would be excluded.

The Assembly and Senate have their own compensation packages. There are small distinctions, but they’re both a good deal. Staff pay nothing, or almost nothing, for health, dental and vision. Even co-pays are covered with annual stipends. And the Legislature helps cover the cost of its workers’ pension contributions.

A union could empower and protect workers, which is good.

So, legislative staff enjoy a better deal than most of the state’s other 200,000 workers.

But they have no shop stewards to stand up for them in a hierarchical world where the powerless can become prey.

Recent anti-harassment efforts by both houses have not assuaged a sense of vulnerability, nor convinced workers they’re anything other than expendable.

A union could empower and protect workers, which is good.

But from the outsider perspective, the win is in the fact it could well reduce the army of campaign volunteers who may be bullied into working for candidates they — or you — don’t endorse.

 And that’s good, too.