Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association

In what is shaping up as one of the biggest political fights this year, conservative lawmakers are pushing a slew
of measures that would fundamentally weaken public-sector unions in Arizona. Taken together, the anti-union bills that were approved this week by a legislative committee are more restrictive than what was enacted in Wisconsin, where political turmoil erupted after its governor proposed to curtail collective bargaining rights for most state and local public employees. In Arizona, the proposal won't just shrink collective bargaining by public-sector unions. It would completely eliminate bargaining or any meet-and-confer abilities of public unions. Other bills would prohibit automatic deductions of public employees’ pay checks for union dues and ban pay for civil servants to do union work.

The measures have a long way to go before they land on the desk of Gov. Jan Brewer. But already, union representatives and critics say Republicans who are supporting the measures are courting a political backlash.
That is, Republicans are picking a fight only months before the 2012 elections with groups that have the means
to fight back. Additionally, they also risk upsetting civil servants — cops and fire fighters, in particular — who are highly regarded by the public. Their unions’ endorsement is sought by Republicans and Democrats alike. Brewer, for one, was endorsed by several police associations in 2010, including the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association.

Union representatives are expected to ramp up their lobbying efforts at the state Capitol to try and head off the legislation. But a local leader said they have an array of options to fight the proposals if they become law, including challenging them in court and going after politicians at the ballot box. “There's no option off the table as far as targeting politically,” said Rebekah Friend, executive director of the Arizona AFL-CIO. Friend also anticipates
national labor groups to get engaged. “We are making national news with this. These bills are considered worse than what happened in Wisconsin, and you saw the level of participation and engagement in Wisconsin. So I think to say that because its Arizona you won't see that kind of participation would be foolish,” Friend said.

The intensity of the passion that the proposals have ignited was palpable on Feb. 1, when they were approved by
the Senate Government Reform Committee. And the exchanges between union representatives and lawmakers
could prove to be a preview of the political battle ahead. Speaking against the proposal to prohibit automatic salary deductions for union dues (and for other contributions like charities) unless employees expressly authorize it each year, Mike Colletto, who represents the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, complained that it singles out public-sector unions and impedes employees’ free speech.

His testimony, perhaps more than anybody else's, revealed the depth of fire fighters’ disappointment at the legislation.
At one point, Colleto asked lawmakers how he should respond to guys who run into burning buildings to save lives who
are now asking, “Why are they coming after me?”

“We have supported this caucus for the last 30 years and now we've got this? When did we become the bad guys? So,
Mr. Chairman, I’d like some help on how do I tell my members that this Legislature is their friend if all we see is…
(a slew of) bills that's going to attack them and degrade them and say they're too stupid to know what they're supposed
to do — whether to get in or out of the union or to support a PAC or not support a PAC,” he said.

But Sen. Rick Murphy, the committee chairman, said he fails to see how the proposal chills speech or personally attacks anybody. “I don't think a once-a-year reaffirmation of that is really an excessive request,” he said. Later, Colletto issued
a warning. “Quite frankly, this bill and the following bills are going to create a fire storm in our organization,”
he said. “You're going to force us to become less flexible. All of this in the package is going to do that. And you've
got to be careful — from my perspective, from a political perspective — you've got to be thoughtful on how that goes.” Other union representatives raised similar points during the hearing.

They said the proposal, and the three others that passed along party lines that day, are politically driven and noted how
the bills’ backers have speculated about unions’ tendency to favor Democratic candidates or espouse a set of values that
are typically associated with the minority party in Arizona. But the bills’ supporters said the legislation would save the
state and local governments a lot of money and eliminate unions’ unfair advantage over regular citizens in influencing
policy.

They argued that unions have accumulated tremendous clout over public officials that then enact policies that favor
them. They described a conflict of interest when public-sector unions negotiate over wages and benefits with the same politicians they helped to get elected. They said ultimately, collective bargaining is a legal tool by unions to “extract”
as much as they can from taxpayers. “They (public officials) feel a political threat that causes them to make policies
based on political threats, rather than based on merits,” said Nick Dranias, a lawyer with the Goldwater Institute,
the conservative policy advocacy group that is lobbying in favor of the anti-union bills. Dranias said the warning
from the fire fighters union is exactly the situation that collective bargaining has created. He added that the groups research showed that if collective bargaining were eliminated, it would save the state and local governments roughly $550 million each year. Lawmakers like Murphy also alluded to unions’ spending for Democratic candidates. “The truth of the matter is most unions spend most of their money on one side of the political spectrum,” he said. A
cursory survey of spending by the political committee of the Professional Fire fighters of Arizona showed it
contributed $40,000 to the Democratic Party in the 2010 election cycle.

The Arizona Education Associations political committee also contributed to the Arizona Democratic Party. And
in the same election cycle, it gave to several Democratic candidates but only contributed to two Republicans’ campaigns. As expected, the discussions delved into the pros and cons of public sector unions and the value of
public employees’ work. Union supporters said collective bargaining is a management tool that allows employers and employees to cooperatively find solutions to complex problems. They also reminded lawmakers that Arizona is a right-to-work state.

Jennifer Loredo, a lobbyist for the Arizona Education Association, said school districts voluntarily enter into employment negotiations with the teachers. For Loredo, the proposal to end collective bargaining by public sector employees chips
away at local control. Meanwhile, the bills’ supporters talked about the ills that plague heavily unionized societies. Some recounted stories about family members who were allegedly harassed by unions. Lynne Breyer said her daughter was
forced out of teaching because of union coercion and pressure. She told lawmakers she doesn't want taxpayer dollars benefiting unions.

The Feb. 1 committee hearing attracted a sizable crowd — but there were no protests outside. Part of that can be explained by the nature of politics at the state Capitol. A victory in committee doesn't necessarily translate into legislative success. Additionally, unions might have had very little time to organize. The bills were introduced on
Jan. 30 and heard two days later. But its also early in the legislative process. Unions have plenty of opportunities to stop the measures, while supporters may yet agree to tweak them. The bills still need to get the approval of the full Senate and, after that, the House. Finally, Brewer still has to weigh in, which will ultimately determine the proposals’ fate.

Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, who authored the proposal to prohibit automatic deductions for union dues unless employees expressly consent to them each year, said the proposals could be “improved.” Already, Senate Majority Whip Frank Antenori has one suggestion — find a way to keep union contributions from going to national labor groups. “I think where the problem (has) arisen is where a lot of these unions pay exorbitant dues to national union organizations that then become a political sledge hammer,” he said. “If its used for local purposes and its not used for large national (groups), then they would be exempt.”Antenori is also open to curtailing, rather than completely eliminating, public unions ability to bargain.

For example, the Tucson Republican said he doesn't have any heartburn over unions’ ability to negotiate over salary.
In any case, the relative tranquility at the Capitol could change overnight if the bills advance. The less restrictive proposals in Wisconsin spawned angry demonstrations and recalls against Republicans, some of whom were
defeated. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, is now facing a recall election. One prevailing sentiment is Arizona's unions aren't as influential as those in Wisconsin. But Sen. Steve Gallardo, a Democrat from Phoenix, said the bills’ backers in the Legislature may be underestimating the backlash they're flirting with.

“This is the atomic bomb on organized labor,” Gallardo said, adding he believes national labor groups will work to ensure the proposals die here and don't get copied elsewhere. “They're going to put every dollar they have into
Arizona to make sure that this type of legislation doesn't happen again.”

By Luige del Puerto - luige.delpuerto@azcapitoltimes.com