Worst idea ever: unionizing legislative employees
And because the idea is so apocalyptically bad, it’s almost certain to become law next year.
Buried on page 87 of the 217-page state government budget bill (HF 1830), passed in the waning hours of the 2023 legislative session, was an obscure provision calling for a study of the worst idea ever proposed in government,
Sec. 130. PREPARATORY WORK ON EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING FOR LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES.
Labeling the provision as “preparatory work” signals that implementing the idea is just a matter of “when” not “if.”
The provision requires that a report “must” be produced, and the deadline for that report is fast approaching: August 1, 2024.
We’ve heard from multiple sources that legislative staffers are being surveyed as part of this effort.
The pitfalls are obvious. I’ve previously documented how dependent Minnesota Democrats (DFL) are on public employee unions for financing their election campaigns.
Imagine the situation where union employees are staffing the very elected representatives and senators who write labor laws and set budgets.
Legislative staffers are the ones who put words to the ideas that legislators have, translating bill ideas into bill language. Legislative staffers are the ones who tally the votes cast in committees and on the chamber floors.
Two cliches apply: personnel is policy and the devil is in the details.
The idea for unionizing legislative staffers appears to have arisen from HF 77 (introduced by state Rep. Sydney Jordan (DFL-Minneapolis)) and SF 83 (introduced by state Sen. Jennifer McEwen (DFL-Duluth). Their bills would have skipped the study stage and gone directly to implementation.
The report due in August bought the state some time. But what kind of unionization will emerge?
Will union membership be compulsory as a condition of hiring? Will the “union hiring hall” model be adopted, where the union provides the pool of potential employees to choose from? Will the union police its ranks with mandatory ideological “codes of conduct” that employees must follow?
Imagine this scenario: you must belong to the union to work for the legislature. The union decides who can belong to the union.
So, no Republicans or conservatives need apply. Elected officials must employ only people who oppose them, politically. Would the union allow for a bill to be drafted that they oppose?
Who will staffers answer to, elected officials or union officials? Will the unions have several hundred moles inside of the legislative branch?
What checks and balances would remain in our system, if legislative staffers are unionized?