By Jonathan Walters

 
or those who thrill to the details of public-sector personnel management — this for whom public-sector labor relations is worthy cocktail party chatter — there’s big news afoot. And although I make light of it, something just happened in Washington State that ought to get some real attention.

For years I’ve laid down this challenge to friends are active in public-sector employee unions: If you want collective bargaining, or if you want to open up substantial new areas to the realm of collective bargaining, then make a trade: Put civil service reform on the block. It has always seemed like a reasonable trade to me. But the reflexive response of organized labor has long been that it wants both: the protection of a collective bargaining agreement and the copious rules and restrictions laid out in the typical civil service statute.

It never made sense to me. A well-crafted collective bargaining agreement ought to provide all the status and protection to employees that an archaic civil service statute does. And given the absolute loathing that most elected officials have for civil service, it could be an awfully enticing chit to put on the table in states where labor wants the right to collectively bargain.

Which is why what happened in Washington State last week is so interesting. In return for the right to bargain over salary (previously, Washington State followed the federal model: no bargaining over pay), organized labor in the state has agreed to wholesale new flexibility for the state personnel director under civil service rules. Under the new law, the job of reviewing and making new personnel rules for the state falls directly to the personnel director rather than the state personnel board, where such rules tend to get tied up in knots. Too much power for one person? Here’s the important caveat: There are ample instances under the new statute where that rule-writing authority “may be superseded by a collective bargaining agreement.”

As part of the package, state employees covered by collective bargaining also can’t take “two bites of the apple” when it comes to appealing management decisions. That is, they can’t both file a grievance under their contract and appeal to the state personnel board under civil service statute. Discipline, reductions in force and alleged violations of civil service law and such will be matters handled through procedures negotiated as part of labor contracts.

The whole thing seems like a fair exchange to me, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds in Washington. If it works out for employees, then organized labor might start to see the light on winning the right to collectively bargain in more states: Trade it for real civil service reform.

Jonathan Walters is a staff correspondent for Governing.

Recently in View:

The IT Handouts that Aren’t Coming: waiting for the feds (posted March 8, 2002)

Home on the Range: an environmental opportunity (posted February 27, 2002)

The Election Miracle that Wasn’t: Massachusetts and Clean Elections (posted February 19, 2002)

The Crucial State Anti-Terrorism Role: you can’t have too much coordination (posted Feb. 11, 2002)

Thugs, Ted and Term Limits: bringing out the bogus arguments (posted February 4, 2002)

Complete index of View columns

 
Copyright © 2002, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.