Binding arbitration beats walking off the job every time.

You don't have to carry picket signs through the wind and snow while trying to survive on a pittance from the union strike fund. And it's virtually certain you'll end up with more money and benefits than if you did walk.

Tuesday the state Division of Labor reversed its position of three years ago and ruled that a strike against the Regional Transportation District by Local 1001 of the Amalgamated Transit Union "would interfere with the preservation of the public peace, health and safety."

That means the new three-year contract will be determined by an arbitrator with no stake in the outcome. It's possible, of course, that the RTD and its union will negotiate a deal before the current contract expires Saturday. But if they do, it will be because the binding arbitration order is like a gun to the head of management.

If the union gets any raise at all, it's a victory. RTD management offered no raises - not surprising, since sales tax revenues declined 1.3 percent from 2007 to 2008. In recent months the decline has been even steeper. Even RTD management, which historically has been overgenerous to itself, has decided to forfeit pay raises this year.

What goes to the employees, of course, won't be going to better equipment or more service. Indeed it could lead to further service cutbacks and even layoffs, which the RTD hasn't yet made.

The bizarre procedure used by the union to try to obtain binding arbitration is becoming something of a ritual. As Rocky reporter Kevin Flynn noted in his report last week, it has a surreal, through-the-looking glass atmosphere.

After contract negotiations inevitably break down, the union files notice that it intends to strike, as required by law. Then, in briefs and at hearings before the director of the labor division, it proceeds to argue that its request should be denied on grounds it would cause great inconvenience, even danger, to the public.

Management, in turn, must argue that a strike wouldn't be so bad. The public might be a bit inconvenienced, it argues, but it learns to get around without buses and trains.

As Cal Marsella, RTD general manager, said at the hearing, "Preventing a strike would strip the union of incentive for good-faith bargaining."

Indeed it does. Every union would love to have the option of binding arbitration.

The union has struck twice, for almost a month in 1982 and for a week in 2006. Neither was successful. Most RTD customers found other ways to get around and the union had to pretty much settle for the final offer.

In 1997, though, the union went to binding arbitration and won on almost every count, costing RTD millions more than anticipated.

The union must have been especially eager to avoid a strike this time. Not only are sales tax revenues down, unemployment is up and plenty of people would be very happy to work at the RTD for even less than the current contract calls for.

So why did labor division chief Mike McCardle, who ruled in 2006 a strike wouldn't endanger public peace, health and safety, change his mind this time?

He offered no rationale in his written order Tuesday night. But division spokeswoman Cher Haavind suggested that the impact of a strike would be more significant in this year's depressed economic climate.

But there were other factors. This year, the division scheduled a public hearing. That's not required by statute, and in 2003 and 2006 the parties simply filed briefs. This year's hearing was well-promoted among the disabled community, which showed up en masse and testified against the possibility of a strike.

And it's not insignificant that the current governor is Bill Ritter, a Democrat, and yes, he was "informed" in advance of the division's decision to go to arbitration. In 2003 and 2006, Republican Bill Owens was in charge.

Peter Blake is a former Rocky Mountain News political columnist. He can be reached at pblake0705@comcast.net.