Union contracts and transparency

The editorial in the Spokesman-Review on January 26, 2020, argues in support of transparency in public-sector union negotiations. The opinion is that without transparency or open door public-sector union negotiations; there is no accountability to voters when negotiations are conducted in secrecy.

The process of negotiating collective bargaining agreements can be difficult, complex and arduous. When complete, the draft collective bargaining agreement can only be approved by elected officials in a public meeting. Thus, the accountability to the voter for any contract terms in a collective bargaining agreement rests with their respective elected official.

However, I don’t see that having open doors for public-sector union negotiations to be all that fatal to the process. Today, local governments in the state of Washington operate effectively with transparency in open public meetings and open public records. So I’m sure open public-sector union negotiations can be effectively accepted as well.

But, I do find the editorial to be disingenuous by not fully disclosing the initial idea of demands for transparency in union negotiations came not from the print media but from far-right-wing organizations such as the Freedom Foundation, which are funded by the likes of the Koch brothers, Scaife Foundation and DeVos Foundation; all of which are clearly anti-union.

Oversimplifying and inserting sunshine as a panacea for all our ills is convenient. But the world is complicated and not disclosing all known motives can be just as damaging as secret meetings.

Paul Schmidt

Cheney