No conflict? Yes, there is

No sooner did the union series start Thursday than callers and writers began chiming in.

Most of what we heard during the day could be classified as "It's about time Idaho followed Wisconsin's and Ohio's lead."

Some of the verbiage was much stronger, mostly anti-union.

If there was a specific hotspot, it was Coeur d'Alene's practice of having its collective bargaining negotiators and all its non-union employees as well, receive the same benefits that the union members have. While city officials say they see no conflict of interest in that, we can say emphatically that a good many of their constituents do.

We appreciate the fact that negotiating with their three unions is an amicable, respectful process for Coeur d'Alene officials, but that should not be the goal. The officials' responsibility should be to their taxpayers first, just as the union reps' responsibility will be chiefly to their members.

One suggestion is that the three primary city negotiators - the deputy city administrator, the finance director and the human resources director - should not receive the union benefits. But cutting them out of the booty creates an inequity between them and every other city employee, so the system appears fatally flawed.

We strongly encourage the city to revise its process by employing a qualified third party who will negotiate on behalf of taxpayers, with no direct or indirect rewards from the agreements themselves. We're also puzzled why employees who choose not to belong to unions would be given the union benefits.

Failure to adequately address conflicts like this will only embolden legislators who already find fault with the collective-bargaining process and fan the flames of many citizens' smoldering anti-union sentiments.