ARLENE VIOLET - Binding arbitration is still a bad deal

In the beginning of October I wrote a column about just how bad binding arbitration for teachers' contracts would be for taxpayers. I argued that the case law is skewed totally toward the unions. The advocates' attempts to cite the experiences of Connecticut and Massachusetts (the facts which they also twist) are inaccurate, since the established case law of Rhode Island would have to be followed. This body of law is one-sided because "independent" hearing officers of the past were union lackeys. Indeed, some were even union office holders. I also cited the case of a teacher in the East Bay who, despite a history of alcohol abuse and lies, was reinstated to her elementary school class. Further evidence of bias was manifested by the state Labor Relations Board, who ruled in favor of the union during the same week. In some ways, the "hearing" officials can't help it. They must reach their pro-union result because of the way case law has developed and their concomitant obligation to follow legal precedent.

Still further developments last week underscored the foolhardiness of having binding arbitration. The state approved the appointment of state Sen. John Tassoni, a Smithfield Democrat, who for years served as the senior agent for the largest state employees union. He now is on the list of qualified mediators to settle state or local disputes. He joins such notables on the list as Bernard Singleton, former top official of the National Education Association of Rhode Island, and Gerry Cobleigh, an attorney who has represented the correctional officers union for years. You don't have to be a member of the Mensa Society to understand why the case law is tilted toward unions.

As a government principle, the legislation is horrid since it usurps local control over the budget. A relatively anonymous hearing officer will empty the billfolds and purses of taxpayers without any accountability. The "throw the bums out" check mechanism will be vitiated since voters will have no control. These folks aren't elected.

An editorial in the Providence Journal also made a compelling point. Chiefs of the two teachers unions would be dealing with the arbitrators over and over again while each city and town would interact only sporadically around every three years when the contract came up. This would place a strong financial incentive on an arbitrator to shade the decision toward the union so he'd be hired again. Ruling against the taxpayers in one community would pose far less of a risk.

As previously noted in my earlier column, labor peace is ephemeral. One need only to look at the Providence firefighters' history.

Just where the unions are getting the argument that lawyers fees would cease is also a mystery. Certainly, towns are not going to send in officials to an arbitration unrepresented. The most laughable arguments advanced by the teachers unions are that the "sadness" of empty classrooms because of a strike would end and the "work to rule" principle would be tabled. Right now it is illegal to strike, but the teachers do it anyway, costing municipal taxpayers money to bring them to court. Inevitably, they are ordered back to the classroom because of the illegality of their action. Further, the "work to rule" is a disgrace. Nothing hurts the credibility of all teachers as the dastardly "snit" of a "work to rule" retaliation.

Legislators who are in the pockets of the unions will talk about curbs in the legislation re: ceilings on salaries, etc. This is hogwash. As you read this today, many contracts are already one-sided and there will never be a chance to curb excesses. All an arbitrator will do is rule on "new benefits" and terms, not revisit the giveaways already embedded. Any legislator who voted for arbitration should be shown the door in the next election. They are panderers who deserve to be replaced.

- Violet is an attorney and former state attorney general.