The state finds itself in a bad situation with its AFSCME union contract, upon which state and union negotiators agreed last summer.

Friday, March 08, 2002

The state finds itself in a bad situation with its AFSCME union contract, upon which state and union negotiators agreed last summer. Because the bill includes provisions for same-sex medical benefits for state employees’ partners, the contract faces a hard road to approval in the Republican House of Representatives.

Because allowing same-sex benefits opens the state up to the possibility of massive fraud, and because some feel the benefits would be discriminatory against unmarried heterosexual partners, many lawmakers don’t want the provision to be part of a state labor contract. And who can blame them? Letting such a thing become law sets a precedent that will surely be cited by other unions who want the same benefit.

On the other hand, by throwing out the contract, the legislature invites another state workers’ strike – which everyone should agree should be avoided if possible.

There is really no good way out of this jam, so some lawmakers are hoping to take the easy way out. They want to pass a law allowing the contract to become law without the legislature’s explicit approval. Basically, the lawmakers would avoid voting on it.

Such a bill faces poor prospects in the House. Even if that were not the case, such a solution – or, really, lack of a solution – is not the answer.

Nobody wants another state workers’ strike, but the legislature must work out some solution that will satisfy the union without allowing same-sex benefits to become law. The provision has too many pitfalls to be good policy for the state.