Mayoral Terms and Unions

Wisconsin's fight over public employee union's collective bargaining got me thinking about Newburyport.

Yeah, I've got a problem.

(Unrelated note: the Daily News talked to locals about the battle today.)

I'll preface my comments by stating I've belonged to two unions in my life time. Led one at the Daily News back in The Day, although it was largely a feeble and toothless union. Young reporters care too much about their careers and the communities they cover to threaten things like strikes or even adhering to 40-hour work weeks.

So I'm generally pro-union, especially in the private sector. But public employee unions are a slightly different matter as they and their membership have a direct influence over who sits on the other side of the bargaining table. As a member of the CWA union representing reporters in Newburyport, Peabody and Salem, I had no say how Essex County Newspapers ran its business. As a public employee I can influence elections either with votes, campaigning or cash, even at a local level.

Those are the rules. I accept them, and I'm largely a union guy. But here's where my wondering takes me.

The Charter Review Comission - which is reviewing the structure of city government - is proposing the city's mayor serve a four-year term rather than just two. (See recent Daily News article here.) This idea along with many others will go before voters in the fall, and I've heard solid arguments from commission members as to why the move is wise or unnecessary.

Here's an issue I haven't heard discussed. Would a mayor with a four-year term have more or less clout when negotiating with public employees? My gut says more as he or she wouldn't need to worry about re-election the year after or the year of a particularly tough negotiating season. A year or two could pass to let passions die down and opposition wane, particularly if the deal proved to be good for the city.

Conversely, opponents to the change might suggest the mayor could hand out sweet heart deals in years one or two of a term with the hope that voters who were upset with the deals will forget or forgive the perceived transgression.

I tend to think a four-year term might give the city a stronger hand to play at the table. Perhaps I'm overstating the influence of public employees. I'd be interested in hearing other people's positions.