Wilson, Unions in Grudge Match

This is the last act for Gov. Pete Wilson, his final year as California’s chief executive. And like a veteran crooner on a farewell tour, the governor has returned to old favorites for a curtain dropper.

Combining his historic willingness to embrace divisive ballot measures with a longtime antipathy toward organized labor, Wilson has seized the spotlight as leader of a June ballot measure intended to undercut the influence of unions in California politics.

The measure, Proposition 226, would require unions to obtain a member’s permission each year before using dues for political campaigns, a prospect that has struck fear among Democrats and union leaders nationwide.

Wilson calls the high-stakes campaign, which has sparked similar measures across the country, one of the great public services of his career.

“I believe in it passionately,” Wilson said in an interview. “It’s the right thing.”

Those are weighty words from a politician who in recent years made a national name as a vocal proponent of headline-grabbing ballot battles over illegal immigration, affirmative action and the three-strikes initiative. Union leaders say Wilson’s motive in pushing Proposition 226 is simple: He wants to curry favor with conservative Republican donors as he prepares for a possible presidential run in 2000.

Proposition 226 marks the sixth time in Wilson’s tenure as governor that he has played a key role in supporting a controversial statewide ballot measure. “No politician this century has exploited the initiative process better than Pete Wilson,” said Chuck Price, a Cal State Chico political science professor.

The governor’s political opponents say Proposition 226 is among the most mean-spirited of the measures. “This reflects a serious character defect in the governor: he tries to destroy his enemies,” said state Sen. Bill Lockyer, a Hayward Democrat and frequent Wilson foil. “It would be horribly unfair to silence working people and let money from corporations and the wealthy totally dominate politics.”

Wilson has campaigned hard for Proposition 226, both publicly and privately. It has sent him to Washington for chats with big-ticket donors. He has rallied the nation’s Republican governors to join in the anti-union fray. His campaign team--battle-tested in repeated statewide races--is fully engaged.

Of late, Wilson has even taken to paraphrasing one of the country’s founding fathers to make his pitch.

“I think Jefferson was right when he said it’s sinful and tyrannical to take someone’s money and spend it for political purposes to which they are violently opposed,” Wilson said in an interview last week. “And that happens every day. . . . Many, many times the choices and the decisions made by the union leadership flies right in the face of the desires of their members.”

But the notion of Pete Wilson looking out for the union man has leaders of organized labor apoplectic. Wilson’s political career has been marked by disputes with unions, particularly those representing public employees.

Tussles With Unions

As the mayor of San Diego in the 1970s, he repeatedly got in tussles with unions representing bus drivers and firefighters. “This guy has been trashing workers since he was mayor,” said Drew Mendelson, a California State Employees Assn. spokesman. “He virtually destroyed the employee unions down there.”

In 1978, during a first abortive run for governor, Wilson helped a failed bid for a statewide initiative to outlaw strikes by public employees. He also helped beat back attempts in Sacramento to let independent arbitrators settle collective bargaining disputes with public employee unions. Wilson argued that it would rob taxpayers of their elected representative at the negotiation table.

His two terms as governor have been shadowed by feuds with public employee unions, most notably the powerful California Teachers Assn.

Wilson still bristles over TV commercials the teachers union aired that painted him as the culprit behind the long 1992 state budget stalemate. The ads helped sink him in public opinion polls. Since then, Wilson has jousted with the teachers on charter schools, merit pay, statewide testing standards, class-size reduction and a raft of other issues.

Teachers are particularly wary of a November ballot measure Wilson is pushing to give parents and state lawmakers more power over schools. It also would require teachers to be evaluated for promotion based partly on student test scores. If Proposition 226 is approved in June, they fear it could shackle union attempts to thwart the measure in the fall.

The California State Employees Assn., meanwhile, has battled Wilson in court on overtime pay and the diversion of state employee pension funds.

State workers haven’t had a salary hike in three years, a stalemate Wilson blames on the unwillingness of the union to accept performance standards. But union leaders note the governor’s repeated raises, most recently a 26% bump approved by a commission composed of Wilson’s political appointees, although the increase becomes effective only during the governor’s last few weeks in office.

Wilson also made privatization of state jobs a top priority, although the effort flopped after unions challenged it in court. While the arrows generally fly at public employee unions, labor in the private sector has seen attacks on the prevailing wage rate and had overtime rights curtailed during Wilson’s tenure.

Some Wilson backers say the Proposition 226 battle will indeed be a springboard for the governor’s possible presidential quest. Proposition 226 will enhance his appeal to conservatives, who shunned the governor during his disastrous 1996 run for the White House, boosters say.

“If Proposition 226 wins, it will be in large measure because of Pete Wilson’s support and leadership,” said Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, which is shepherding similar campaigns in other states. “Every Reagan Republican needs to look at Pete Wilson anew.”

Wilson Cites Support for Measure

The governor doesn’t discount a possible second presidential run, but insists he would have supported Proposition 226 even if he ruled out a bid for national office.

Wilson said he has no quarrel with the union rank and file, but rather with leaders who tap dues to promote causes that sometimes run counter to the wishes of the members. He notes that one union helped finance the 1996 medical marijuana initiative, which he opposed, while another fought three-strikes and several ganged up against Proposition 187, the 1994 anti-illegal immigration measure.

Such stands have alienated union members, Wilson said. As proof, he points to public opinion polls showing strong support for Proposition 226 outside union leadership.

“What galls the union bosses,” Wilson said, “is that this is an issue that pits them against their own rank-and-file members.”

He also argues that union leaders, particularly at the teachers union, have blocked needed governmental reforms.

Wilson, for example, criticized what he considers union resistance to charter schools, which are designed to allow teachers and parents more leeway for educational innovation. Union officials, however, say they support the concept but believe the governor’s real motive is to use charter schools to freeze out the union.

“He seems to see charter schools as an opportunity to bust unions,” said John Hein, the union’s top lobbyist in Sacramento. Wilson calls such charges rubbish.

While the early polls show a majority supporting Proposition 226, some observers--such as Price of Cal State Chico--are not convinced that voters eventually will back the initiative.

The proposition reminds Price of an initiative Wilson sponsored in 1992, Proposition 165, that linked the popular idea of welfare reform with the less popular notion of enhancing the governor’s budgetary powers.

A distrustful public, buffeted by arguments that the governor was trying to pull a fast one, rejected the initiative after Wilson spent $2 million of his own campaign funds to promote it.

Wilson said he is hardly a fan of initiatives, loathing the rigid framework that permits only an all-or-nothing vote instead of the legislative give and take. But with Democrats dominating the Legislature, Wilson said, he has had no choice.

“I would instantly prefer to see these reforms enacted by the Legislature,” Wilson said. “I have resorted to the initiative process because it was the only means available to cure a legislative default.”

Wilson is confident that Proposition 226 will win. His only worry is a last-minute attack such as the TV ad that helped defeat two reapportionment initiatives in 1990. Footage showed a seal pup caught in an oil slick, suggesting that redrawn district lines would usher in an era of anti-environmentalism. It worked, Wilson said, because not enough money was spent by proposition backers.

He vowed to not let that happen this time. Although he expects to be outspent by the unions, Wilson and other initiative boosters promise to spend lavishly. Wilson is even pushing for cash from state business leaders, who have remained conspicuously neutral on Proposition 226 out of fear that unions might retaliate with anything from boycotts to counter-strike ballot measures.

“If people know what this is, it’s going to pass regardless of what the union bosses spend because the union rank-and-file are going to vote for it,” Wilson said. “And they should because right now they are being exploited.”