Washington's state government imposed the same policy in 2004 that the Ritter administration is now pushing in Colorado -- letting unions collectively bargain for wages and benefits of state employees -- and that state's payroll spending soared as union ranks swelled.

The move also led to a backlash among hundreds of Washington state employees who were forced under the new labor contract to join the union and pay dues, pay "agency fees" in lieu of dues -- or lose their jobs. Some employees actually were dismissed.

That's the upshot of Washington's experience after only two fiscal years, as related in a recent report by the Seattle Times newspaper and corroborated by the Olympia, Wash.-based think tank, Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

"Collective bargaining is a shakedown from any angle, not only for the taxpayers who foot the bill but also for the additional state employees who wind up paying dues," said Colorado Senate GOP leader Andy McElhany. "Almost the only ones who come out ahead are the union bosses."

The veteran Colorado Springs lawmaker's remarks followed disclosures Wednesday in the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News that the Ritter administration has been engaged in closed-door negotiations with members of the Service Employees International Union and other unions to draft a plan that would implement collective bargaining.

Rumors have dogged the administration for months that it and ruling legislative Democrats are planning a push for collective bargaining next year, possibly including even the employees of local governments. The administration has sidestepped the issue when confronted by the media but this week was forced under the Colorado Open Records Act to release documents showing that the governor's staffers have been deeply involved in drafting a collective-bargaining plan with Democrat lawmakers.

The documents were released to the press and public following an open-records request by the blog www.facethestate.com and included a draft of a bill to implement collective bargaining. That draft, originally intended for introduction in the 2007 legislative session, includes an acknowledgment that, "a negotiated employee partnership agreement would shape the legislative budget-setting process."

According to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's Mike Reitz, the first year of Washington's experience with collective bargaining brought employees somewhat higher wages, but those wage hikes were a wash for many workers who previously were non-union but now had to pay dues or non-member agency fees. However, after the second fiscal year, employees' in some departments got up to 25 percent raises, as Reitz and the Seattle Times point out.

Alongside that development, union membership rolls exploded. The state's largest union went from 19,000 members before collective bargaining to 40,000 members. The Seattle Times, in its July report, found that the leap in membership, "enabled the biggest state-worker unions to hire more lobbyists and lawyers, boost grass-roots lobbying, beef up field operations and pour tens of thousands more dollars into political campaigns, mostly for Democrats."

Reitz also noted that the major policy shift also alarmed a number of employees who objected to paying anything to the union.

"Right off the bat, we had hundreds of employees upset they were  forced to pay dues to the union," Reitz said. He said those dues run as high as $600 a year for employees and that some employees fought to the bitter end for the right not to join or pay.  He cited the case of one employee in Washington's agriculture department who had gotten glowing reviews but ultimately was fired for refusing to pay dues.

Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer has refused to discuss details of the Ritter administration's negotiations with labor unions but repeatedly has referenced the governor's "desire to strengthen partnerships" with the likes of "snowplow drivers" and "prison guards." McElhany laughed at what he called "warmed-over talking points."

"Partnerships! So, that's what they're calling a union chokehold these days. They're putting lipstick on a pig," McElhany said. "If they want to give a raise to plow drivers and prison guards, all they have to do is include that in the governor's annual  budget proposal. They don't have to indebt every taxpayer to the unions."