By Del Benson
Saipan resident
HOW often do we — as individuals or as a government — move forward with decisions without truly weighing the consequences? More importantly, how often do we seriously consider the unintended consequences?
Before any bill is introduced, there are fundamental questions that must be asked:
Do we really need this bill?
What problem is it trying to solve?
Who benefits — and how?
What will it cost?
Who are the stakeholders?
And most importantly: what could go wrong?
These questions are not optional. They are essential. Yet too often, they are overlooked.
Take House Bill 24-15, which proposes opening the door to labor unions in the public sector. At first glance, it may sound beneficial — promising stability, fairness, and protection for workers. That is the utopian vision. But policy should not be built on idealism alone; it must be grounded in reality.
We must ask: will this improve performance and accountability, or will it create systems that protect mediocrity?
One of the key concerns with public sector unions is the difficulty of removing poor-performing employees. “Stability” can easily become a shield for inefficiency. When performance is no longer the primary standard, the system begins to weaken from within.
There is also a deeper issue: conflict of interest.
In the CNMI, one of the largest voting blocs is government employees. These same employees elect the Legislature, the governor, and senators. When those elected officials pass laws that directly benefit that voting base — such as enabling unionization with expanded wages and benefits — it raises an important question: are these decisions being made for the long-term good of the Commonwealth, or for short-term political gain?
Higher wages and expanded benefits sound good. But can we afford them?
We are already facing population decline and economic contraction. Businesses are struggling. Increasing labor costs — especially in a fragile economy — can drive businesses to close or relocate. We have seen this before.
I know of a private business owner whose shop unionized and demanded significantly higher wages. The result was not higher pay — but no pay at all. The business closed. Jobs were lost. Everyone suffered.
Unintended consequences.
In New York City, particularly from about 2007 to 2010, teachers accused of misconduct were often not dismissed but sent to so-called “rubber rooms,” where they remained on full pay while performing little or no work. This situation arose largely due to union rules requiring lengthy legal processes before termination. In some cases, employees remained there for months or even years, until public backlash led to reforms. That is not efficiency. That is not accountability. That is not sustainable.
We must also consider governance.
If a future administration is elected with a mandate for change, how will it implement policy if key personnel are effectively locked in under union protections? Leadership requires the ability to build a team aligned with its policies and goals. Without that flexibility, governance risks becoming stagnant.
This is not an argument against workers. Good employees should absolutely be protected, valued, and retained. But there must also be accountability. Systems that make it nearly impossible to address poor performance ultimately harm the very institutions they are meant to support.
Another concern is external influence.
If public sector unions in the CNMI align with larger U.S.-based labor organizations, decision-making may no longer remain fully local. Outside entities could influence wages, rules, and working conditions without fully understanding the unique economic realities of our islands.
And what about businesses?
Labor is one of the largest costs for any business. Employees can make or break an organization. When mandates are imposed without regard to business sustainability, we risk undermining the very engines of our economy. Employees earn wages, but they do not carry the same financial risk as business owners who invest capital, time, and resources.
That balance matters.
So we return to the central question: why now?
Why introduce a bill with such far-reaching implications in a declining economy? Is this truly about strengthening the workforce — or is it about securing votes?
Before moving forward, legislators must answer clearly:
What is the long-term economic impact?
Will this cost more than it generates?
Will it strengthen or weaken our business environment?
Will it improve performance — or protect inefficiency?
The people of the CNMI deserve thoughtful, transparent answers.
This is not about being for or against unions. It is about responsible governance.
Call your legislators. Ask the hard questions. Demand clarity.
Because once policies like this are put in place, the consequences — intended or not — are not easily undone.
And by then, it may be too late.
