The way I see it is the devil is in the details of this bill. Outwardly, yes civil unions collective bargaining needs reforming since the monies come directly from citizens. But when 2 sides attempt to agree on something, and cannot, is it good to have the 'arbiter' be one side that is arguing their side? Anyone can agree this is good, but if it were you this happened to I'm thinkin you might think differently. This is just one portion of this bill that I see as ludicrous. Like the inane HC bill congress passed, if its not right in its entirety how can it it be 'better than doing nothing'? Imho that kind of thinking is part of why we are in the spot we are in both locally and nationally.