Council’s own medicine

More than 100 City Council staffers, many of them working in members’ district offices, are trying to unionize for better salaries, benefits and working conditions. They have legitimate complaints. All 51 members of the Council are allotted the same amount annually to run their offices, but they can spend their funds pretty much any way they wish. A recent Politico analysis found major pay disparities, with top salaries ranging from $45,000 to $115,000, and some staffers making equivalent to less than minimum wage given long hours and lack of overtime. Benefits, too, fluctuate wildly.

It’s ironic but telling that a body that so often does organized labor’s bidding, that has a habit of lecturing private employers about their responsibilities, allowed such lousy treatment to flourish so long in its own midst.

This Editorial Board does not begrudge any workers the right to try to unionize. But there’s a reason political appointees — which is what most Council employees are — hardly ever bargain their terms of labor.

Elected officials are chosen by voters to advance political goals. They have a rare right to expect employees who agree with them ideologically.

And some staffers’ goals, like an outside censure process for punishing misbehaving councilmembers, won’t come via unionization; that likely requires a City Charter amendment.

In public, councilmembers are claiming to be just fine with unionization. Those griping privately about whether it might jeopardize their ability to flexibly manage and terminate terrible employees should try remembering that feeling when private sector businesses complain about Council-imposed mandates.