Among the litany of bad ideas floating around the Democratic-controlled Legislature to enhance the standing of unions is one that would require local communities and school districts to negotiate minimum staffing levels in labor contracts.

The legislation would lift current restrictions on enshrining staff sizes in agreements covering public employees.

The non-partisan House Fiscal Agency says the proposed changes in the Public Employment Relations Act will increase costs for local units of governments. That’s not likely to deter Democrats who have made serving the interests of unions their top priority since taking control of the Legislature in January.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Jim Haadsma, a Democrat from Battle Creek and chair of the House Labor Committee, says its intent is to keep employees safe and to enhance recruiting efforts.

“We won’t attract more workforce into these careers unless we start having discussions about safety and well-being of workers,” Haadsma said during a committee hearing.

Local communities also are concerned with the health and safety of their employees, and with making sure their departments are fully staffed. It is in their interest to maintain a safe working environment.

They also must worry, however, about balancing their budgets and setting local priorities for how to best use their resources.

Mandatory minimum staffing levels take away the ability of local officials to reduce their workforce in response to an economic downturn or changing needs in their community.

The Michigan Municipal League has expressed concern about the legislation, saying it would force local governments to prioritize services provided by members of a bargaining unit, such as cops and firefighters, over those handled by employees who may not be in a union, including election staffers.

It would also force them to continue hiring even when tax revenues fall. Belt tightening would be limited only to those services provided by non-union employees.

Having the ability to balance competing interests to best serve citizens is essential to good governing. This proposal would greatly tilt that balance.

The fiscal agency says the proposal would impact 71% of the classified government workforce in Michigan’s 10 collective bargaining units.

The legislation gives unions too much influence in how a community’s resources will be distributed. Those decisions are best left to the citizens and the officials they elect to represent them.