Publication: The Dominion Post; Date:2007 Jul 02; Section:Opinion; Page Number: 7-A

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

State leaders chose labor bosses over principles

We are now learning that the labor unions' top legislative priority this year was to eliminate secret ballot elections for workers to determine if they want to unionize their workplace. If this bill had passed, workers could have been subjected to intimidation and coercion by union organizers to sign authorization cards to demonstrate their support of union representation in place of a secret election. Without the protection of secrecy, the employee might also be more vulnerable to pressure from the employer.

In contrast, the current secret ballot method is more likely to protect workers from retribution by either their employer or union organizers. If workers want to organize, they should have the right to vote to unionize or not.

Both of our U.S. senators and Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., voted for eliminating secret ballots. Gov. Joe Manchin, along with only 14 other governors, signed a letter of support for this legislation. These politicians chose the labor bosses bold wishes over basic democratic principles to protect the worker's choice. Thank goodness they failed.

Why would politicians support something like this which is so blatantly undemocratic? Is this a reward for the labor unions' powerful influence in the most recent political campaigns and election results?

I was asking myself the same question this winter during the legislative session in Charleston. Why would Delegates Barbara Fleischaur, Alex Shook and Charlene Marshall introduce legislation which the residents of Morgantown had already rejected at the ballot box? Morgantown residents have already voted against collective bargaining and binding arbitration. However, labor bosses had pulled out all the stops to elect these three politicians.

These local delegates, who supposedly represent citizens of Morgantown, introduced House Bill 2811 to allow city police and firefighters to organize and settle disputes through binding arbitration. The legislation requires the city to meet and confer with the organization's representative about wages, hours and other employment issues. If there is a dispute or no agreement 60 days before the final date that the city sets their budget, outside arbitrators can make the final and binding decisions.

You may recall that City Council feared losing control of the taxpayer-funded budget if they were subjected to binding arbitration. The voters seemed to agree. They can relax for now, because this bill only made it through one House of Delegates committee this year. They may want to pay closer attention next year.

I remember my own sympathies toward the city employees during their referendum campaign. However, why would Fleischauer, Shook and Marshall make an end run around the voters of Morgantown? Do they owe their seats to the labor unions or to the voters?

Cindy Frich
Morgantown