How to get a union endorsement

Election endorsements do a lot more than reflect the principles of the candidates who get them. They are statements about the organizations that hand them out.

This has never been more true for public employee unions.

In the aftermath of the Wisconsin recall election, pension reform votes in San Diego and San Jose, and the bankruptcy of Stockton, Calif., more and more people are paying attention to the issues of unsustainable government payrolls, unfunded pension liabilities and public-sector collective bargaining. Taxpayers in most states and cities are well aware there isn't enough public money to maintain the status quo.

Locally, unions that represent Clark County School District teachers and North Las Vegas employees have shown the lengths to which labor groups will go to collect pay raises, even if it means forcing the layoffs of colleagues.

For the unions, it's never enough to keep what they have. They always want more. More dues-paying jobs. Higher salaries. Better job protections. No competition. Sweeter retirements. And, of course, the higher taxes needed to support it all.

Unions endorse politicians who are sympathetic to those demands and opposed to reforms that would level the playing the field for the taxpayers burdened by public-sector largess.

Of course, this isn't always clear to voters. After all, politicians brag about the endorsements of teachers, police and firefighters because people generally adore teachers and public safety workers. Voters don't get to see what considerations go into a union's endorsement.

Generally, unions base their election endorsements on the voting records of incumbents, questionnaires distributed to candidates and personal interviews with union brass. I've obtained a few of those union questionnaires, and after reading them, it's apparent that groups are worried their gravy train is coming off the tracks.

The Nevada State Education Association - the statewide teacher union - makes clear in its questionnaire that "reform" is a four-letter word. Among the position statements and questions:

- Eight separate demands of "enhanced compensation," including raises "that do not directly or indirectly limit the number of education employees who are eligible for the additional compensation and allows (sic) all licensed personnel and education support professionals equal opportunity to receive compensation."

- Opposition to "any legislation that would change PERS from a defined benefit (pension) program to a defined contribution program"; "any legislation that would divert public money to private schools" (meaning vouchers); and "any attempt to restrict the ability of public employees to hold elected office."

- Support for "equal emphasis for all subject areas" (meaning math is no more important than physical education); "funding to expand English Language Learner programs for parents"; "an expanded scope of mandatory bargaining to include class size" and at least eight other areas.

- Only two of 12 questions dealt with topics other than tax increases, compensation and union issues. One question asked: "Should the legislature require that certain state law should supersede anything in a collective bargaining agreement?"

The survey from AFSCME Local 4041, the union that represents most state employees, has only 14 questions, and the first 13 deal exclusively with collective bargaining, compensation and union protections. (The final question asks about a candidate's personal background.) Among the questions:

- "Do you oppose all privatization of public services?"

- "Do you support raising revenue to ensure citizens continue to receive the services they need and employees are not faced with layoffs, wage cuts, furloughs, and/or a reduction in benefits?"

The survey from the Retired Public Employees of Nevada - which does not issue endorsements but provides candidates' answers to members - asked just five questions on three issues: preserving the state's defined-benefit retirement system; keeping retirees' pension payouts and work histories secret; and shoring up retiree health care benefits.

Only the survey from the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, Nevada Carpenters Political Action Committee - a private-sector union - asked questions about topics beyond collective bargaining and union priorities. Those topics included public transportation, budget cuts, education, ethics in government and immigration.

Its union-oriented questions ask about the state's right-to-work law, prevailing wages, public works projects and prison labor. My favorite question from that group's survey: "Do you believe national and state labor history should be part of the Nevada (K-12) curriculum?" Wouldn't it be interesting to see how that turned out?

Now, do you want to guess how Democrats and Republicans fared in these endorsements?

The Nevada State Education Association did not endorse a single Republican for the Legislature, Congress or the State Board of Education. In a handful of races where Republicans were favored and faced either token opposition from Democrats or none at all, the union issued no endorsement. AFSCME Local 4041, meanwhile, endorsed just one Republican - Assemblyman Pete Livermore of Carson City - with no endorsements in a handful of races.

The unions refuse to recognize reality: The more they work to pump up salaries and pensions that dwarf private-sector livelihoods, the more they squeeze public services. It's already happening across California, where local governments are pouring so much money into employee salaries, pensions and benefits they can't maintain parks and keep libraries open.

So the next time you see a candidate listing a union endorsement - especially one from a public employee union - you've got a sense of what it took to get it. The question is, considering the country's growing weariness of public-sector windfalls, will those endorsements help or hurt candidates during the fall campaign?

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is a Review-Journal editorial writer. Follow him on Twitter: @Glenn_CookNV.