While Proposal 3 might have state employees’ best interests in mind, it would prove costly for Michigan taxpayers in the long run.

If approved, the proposal would guarantee about 60,000 state employees the right to collective bargaining with binding arbitration.

On the surface, this proposal seems fair, as it might give state employees more equal footing in contract bargaining. An objective party can listen to two sides and help them find common ground.

In short, state employees would come out with fuller bargaining leverage, because they already cannot strike.

But the cost of mandated arbitration would be a financial burden on a state that already faces major economic woes. Arbitration processes take an average of two years and come with hefty price tags.

Detroit’s experience with such mandates have proven disastrous. The city has been forced to lay off police citing arbitration costs.

There are other drawbacks as well.

Under binding arbitration, arbitrators could choose between the final offers of state government and the final offers of state employee unions without any middle ground. Proposal 3 also has been criticized for not addressing strike issues, and some say it is uncertain if state workers could gain that power under the measure.

State workers do have some protections under the authority of the state Civil Service Commission. If workers’ issues aren’t being addressed there, it’s time the Legislature intervened.

Perhaps, too, a new governor can bargain in better faith with state workers than Gov. John Engler apparently has.

Now is not the time to alter the state Constitution. Voters should turn down Proposal 3.