‘The unions truly still don’t get it’

State Senate candidate Michael Roberson sat down this month to fill out a public employee union endorsement questionnaire. The Republican had an idea that his politics weren't in line with those of organized labor.

Then he read the questions, and he was immediately reminded of what's at stake in the 2011 Legislature.

"My answers were no, no, no, no, no," said Roberson, who faces Nate Schlumpf in June's primary for District 5 and the right to take on incumbent Democrat Joyce Woodhouse in November. "Then I realized I had no reason to answer the survey because they'll just use my responses in a negative mail piece against me.

"It's unbelievable. The unions truly still don't get it. ... They just keep pushing, and they don't get it."

They don't get that the Nevada economy is in tatters, and that private-sector income is falling. They don't get that near-record unemployment and a bottomed-out housing market have left governments without the resources to support the ever-growing salary and benefit packages that public employees claim as a birthright.

So rather than acknowledge the new realities that are reshaping business and household finances, the unions are doubling down on their confiscatory agenda. They're sending out endorsement questionnaires to legislative candidates that clearly outline their priorities for next year's budget-focused session.

The mission: Elect candidates who'll commit not only to jacking up taxes and preserving everything that current government workers have, but to making their compensation packages, which already dwarf everything in the private sector, even sweeter. They want to make it harder for local elected officials and voters to rein in the largess, and they want the retirement of future public employees -- tweaked last year as part of a tax-increase compromise -- left out of any future budget deals.

Retired Public Employees of Nevada wants candidates to promise to keep their hands off their pensions and health care benefits, which have billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

The Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, a coalition of Nevada police unions, sent 17 questions to legislative candidates, and 12 of them addressed tax increases, collective bargaining, retirement benefits and police pay. None addressed issues relating to crime. Among the gems:

"What is your position on the attack of the Reno and Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce's (sic) on the public employee benefits and compensation packages?"

"Are you willing to support the MORE COPS sales tax increase?"

"What is your position of (sic) a broad-based business tax?"

"What is your position on fixing the Mining tax concerns in Nevada?"

Other questions seek to identify candidates who'll fight efforts to reform government employee collective bargaining by opening negotiating sessions to the public.

"All we have to do is look west to California to see how out-of-control government spending combined with the massive political influence of public unions can lead a state to the brink of bankruptcy," said Republican Assembly candidate Tyler Andrews, who's challenging incumbent Democrat Joe Hogan in District 10. "We can't follow that path. There is still time to fix Nevada's system in a way that benefits both the taxpayers and our public workers, but ignoring the problem won't help anyone."

Government union endorsements used to be a golden ticket in Nevada politics. Candidates coveted the votes guaranteed by the support of labor leadership. The union questionnaires that decided those endorsements, meanwhile, provided bargaining units with what amounted to a bill of sale for a politician's soul.

November's legislative elections and the 2011 session will be defined by tax increases. Democrats, who currently control both houses, want to raise state taxes by some $3 billion next biennium. The seizure of that kind of cash would have devastating consequences on both employers and employees -- as we've learned from the $1 billion in tax increases enacted last year.

Because the vast majority of general fund tax revenues are consumed by personnel costs, tax increases serve only one purpose: preserving high-paying government jobs at the expense of private-sector jobs.

"What I am hearing when I knock on doors is the same thing every time: regular folks are so upset about the outrageous salaries and benefits being paid to so many public-sector workers," Roberson said.

The Service Employees International Union of Nevada wants state legislative candidates who'll get behind federal bills to end secret-ballot union elections, provide amnesty to illegal immigrants and nationalize health care. Some of the other questions the union asks:

"Will you oppose the use of part-times and subcontractors in the public sector which is destroying family-supporting jobs?" and "Do you support every worker's right to a secure, dignified retirement after a long career dedicated to public service?"

The union lobbying strategy for 2011 and beyond is obvious: When the tax money is handed out, mimic the animated seagulls in "Finding Nemo" by squawking "Mine! Mine! Mine!"

"Both ends of the political spectrum should realize that meaningful reform is needed in order to keep Nevada from drowning in future unfunded liabilities and unsustainable debt," Andrews said. "Many of these groups are actually harming their membership by insisting on benefit plans that the state simply won't be able to pay for."

Voters need to pay attention to these endorsements and understand what candidates must say to get them. Republicans must not only avoid the endorsements, but produce ads that trash the Democrats who win them.

In 2010, the support of public employee unions won't be a badge of honor for candidates -- it will be a disgrace.

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is a Review-Journal editorial writer.