I have never been a part of or joined any type of union, public sector or otherwise (although I have two family members in teachers' unions). Old Saybrook has four unions: police, dispatchers, Town Hall supervisors, and Town Hall support staff.

The contracts that have been negotiated over the last 10 to 15 years have excellent benefits for our workers. Pay increases have been fair, but the town has been, in my opinion, generous with other benefits including health insurance, sick time, sick pay, steps, holidays, pension benefits, and inability to discipline and/or discharge employees, etc. Each of these benefits has a direct cost to the taxpayer.

Public sector unions have prospered over the years, but need to realize that the time has come to give back. Historically, the municipal labor union movement lagged the private sector union movement by 40 years. There was always the concern (fear?) that once the unions infiltrated government, government would always have an "ability to pay"-code for the ability of the taxpayer to pay more taxes. While private businesses can go bankrupt or layoff workers or make other adjustments that make business sense, it is rare and dangerous for a municipality to declare bankruptcy (although the examples of Orange County, California, and Detroit, Michigan, are out there).

Union contracts tie government in knots. There is little management flexibility. Every three or four years, we negotiate contracts with our unions (many, but not all, towns in Connecticut are unionized). We have state laws that mandate negotiation followed by mediation and, if necessary, arbitration. I cannot lock out our employees if we cannot agree on a deal. Likewise, they cannot strike. Fair, right? Wrong. Those in the know, and that would include most town managers, mayors, and first selectmen, are aware of how broken our web of state laws governing collective bargaining are, and how those laws benefit unions.

Unions are little concerned with failed negotiations in Connecticut's system. Even in these difficult times, one would think there would be a swinging of the pendulum through which management rules and proposals were now favored in arbitration. It is not so. Dialing back rich benefits given in better times is unlikely. In the meantime, lawyers and union representatives get paid.

My frustration is the entitlement. Having come from the private sector, employees produced or they were not employed. While most of our town employees are good workers, contract language does not allow government to be nimble. The contracts do not allow management, without tremendous legal expense and grief, to dismiss under-performing workers or properly allocate resources.

Allow me to give you a quote from one of our union contracts: "All employees will be evaluated annually within the month of October of each year by their immediate supervisor. The evaluation will not be used for the purposes of wages or disciplinary action?." Now that's useful!

It is my intention to continue in a series of articles on this topic. It needs more attention locally and statewide. The legislators you elect can help change the state laws that govern these contracts. The bottom line: the state needs to reform collective bargaining laws. Collective bargaining should be limited to a very few issues (wages, for one). Allowing management to effectively manage their workforce will result in huge savings to our municipalities statewide and assist the state in getting its fiscal house in order.

More on that next time.