By Christopher Klaver
CIO
Posted: August 26, 2015 12:59 PM

As the state and the unions representing the majority of its employees wrap up negotiations on the first contract where covered employees are not required to at least pay a bargaining fee to those unions, how might state employment change over the next three years?

Much of the change will likely depend on state employees and how much they actually support their unions.

Though there are some organizations that would like to see it (you know who you are), it is unlikely that state employee unions will disappear. As the teacher unions have experienced, they are likely to lose some members, but, also as the teacher unions have experienced, they are likely to retain enough members to remain forces in setting wages and benefits for employees.

First, will unions continue as the sole representative for any given employment area? If membership losses are small enough, that might be the easiest route for both the unions and the state. Both sides would be able to continue dealing with known quantities in overall negotiations and in resolving grievances.

Unions might, though, be able to craft the next round of contracts to put those employees who do not want to join on their own: they can negotiate their own pay and benefits and they can resolve their own grievances. This seems highly unlikely, however. Unions have long feared that management in any employer-employee dynamic would reward those workers operating outside the union.

And experience with the state suggests that management is not likely to be open to individual negotiations. One need look only to the non-exclusively represented state employees. Theoretically, these managers would already be in a position to negotiate compensation packages based on their performance and experience, but in reality, they get the same pay increases and benefits as the union employees, if that.

The state could develop a way to allow for such one-on-one negotiations, but it would require pushing authority for those decisions substantially further down the food chain and additional oversight by those above to be sure any pay increases are in line with the budget, the ultimate driver of those pay decisions.

Opening the grievance process could have some mixed results.

State managers and union grievance representatives already have relationships built, so each side has some idea what to expect from the other that can make the process go more smoothly.

A fresh face in the process, though, would bring a new, unknown dynamic.

The current process is also largely free to employees: they are required to use a union representative and that person is paid through union dues for most issues. Taking employees out of the union grievance process might also mean taking more money out of their pockets should they have an employment issue.

The idea of employees shopping through the unions, as some have promoted as an argument for right-to-work, is probably not viable. First, it is not likely, given the relationships between them, that the various unions are simply going to open themselves to any state employee who wants to join (though they have not in the past been above lobbying to take over each other’s bargaining units).

There are some positions in state government that require a simple knowledge of employment law and the state budget process to represent. There are many, though, that require specialized knowledge of the job and the work environment that a union not representing that post (outside that note above) is unlikely to put in the resources to learn.

Ultimately, the question of change will depend on how many state employees are clamoring to get out of paying unions dues. If that number is significant, there will likely be changes in the state employment process. If it is not, it is likely those few resigning from the unions will be written off as acceptable costs of doing business for the unions and things will go on as they are.