Legislation that would clearly define a state employee is pending at the General Assembly. It may seem like a case of stating the obvious, but it is important that this measure be adopted into law.
Gov. Don Carcieri put forth his definition last month, describing a state employee as a person “duly appointed” to a position created under the state’s classified service, unclassified service or non-classified service, such as a position within the state college system. Individuals “licensed or regulated or certified by any federal, state or municipal government entity” or “who are providing services under contract to the state of Rhode Island” could not be designated as state employees simply because of that work.
As of our deadline last week, the House Finance Committee was discussing the matter as part of the state’s $6 billion budget package. There was talk of the definition being tweaked, but there appears to be consensus that a formal definition needs to be adopted.
We believe that it does.
The governor brought the issue to the forefront this spring, in the wake of the controversy regarding home day-care providers.
Those workers argued that because they must abide by state regulations, they should be entitled to state benefits. And the state Labor Relations Board – a group stacked with members of the AFL-CIO’s executive board – ruled in their favor.
The governor, in calling for a legislated definition of state employees, is looking at the big picture – keeping the best interests of taxpayers in mind in the process.
Unionizing child-care workers because they are regulated by the state sets a truly dangerous precedent. Who will line up next? Are we to bestow state employee status upon hair stylists, car mechanics and others who are licensed by the state?
Workers holding the health and safety of the general public in their hands must be regulated by the state. It’s an example of our government at work to protect our best interests.
To relate that to state employee status doesn’t make any sense at all.
