Power in a legislature like Vermont’s isn’t about who can contribute to whose re-election, or who can block contributions to whose re-election. Power becomes about the perception of power – and how that perception becomes reality, simply by a sort of implicit consent from one’s colleagues.

And that makes it tenuous. If you push too hard in the wrong direction, that illusion shatters. If you try to assert too much power, your bluff may well be called.

Case in point: H.97 and the Vermont arm of the American Federation of Teachers.

H.97 passed out of the House in the last legislative session. As originally introduced in 2011, H.97 would have allowed homebased and center-based child care workers to organize as a union, allowing them to “collectively bargain” with the state over matters of concern to them professionally, such as subsidy rates, training requirements, etc. It’s unusual, but a model which – to varying degrees – has been enacted for this industry in several other states.

In the sausage-making factory that is the House of Representatives, the bill went through a lot of changes. First, center-based staff were removed from the bill at the behest of some politically powerful center owners. Then, the list of issues that would be allowed to be “collectively bargained” with the state was limited.

What was left over was far from revolutionary, but relatively non-controversial. The bill had the support of Gov. Shumlin, had passed the House, and moved to the Senate, where it received a less-than-welcoming reception by Senate President John Campbell (D-Windsor), who shelved it until the 2012 session.

Last week the bill probably self-destructed – or rather, its primary backers (Vermont AFT) blew it up.

AFT has been organizing child care professionals for years, and if these professionals do win collective bargaining rights – even modest ones – it is the AFT which will represent them.

The implications to this within labor circles should not be underestimated. Across the nation, unions have been under attack. Here in Vermont, H.97 offered the chance for significant union expansion. In Vermont – as in every other state – there is more than a little inter-union rivalry and jockeying for position. In this case, the Vermont NEA (which represents teachers) was very leery of a bill that would launch AFT to new prominence, and even worked against the bill behind the scenes when it was first introduced.

The AFT weathered the squabbling. It got a bill (albeit a scaleddown one) through the House. With each victory came a little more of that perception of power, and all that remained to be done was to get the bill past Campbell.

And then the union reportedly overplayed its hand.

Campbell – and many other legislators – had been increasingly frustrated by what they saw as needlessly heavy-handed tactics by the AFT in support of the bill. Finally, according to Campbell, AFT (and Vermont AFL/CIO) head Ben Johnson slid a piece of paper across the table that showed the amount of union spending on the campaigns of Campbell and Democrats in what he felt to be an implicit threat, or quid pro quo demand.

This was too much for Campbell, who pulled the plug on H.97 last week, rather than “reward bad behavior.”

Make no mistake – Campbell wanted to kill this bill. Johnson merely gave him the excuse he was looking for.

Word emerged after the kerfuffle that Campbell may have softened his stance a bit, and the bill could still get hearings. It may be a change of heart on his part, or it may be that he considered the ramifications of thousands of voters receiving union endorsement mailings (endorsements which will largely go to Democrats).

Whatever the case, the AFT has had its power diminished by this affair, making the point that power in the Statehouse is mercurial, and only exists insofar as you don’t try to overextend it.

Gov. Shows Weakness?

Speaking of the perception of Statehouse power, Gov. Shumlin has been seen by some opponents as ceding too much too quickly on his signature issue.

In response to pressure from large businesses, the governor relented on the requirement in his original health care reform plan that would require them to participate in a state-managed insurance “exchange” to purchase coverage.

Businesses are concerned about the potential for extra costs and lack of control over coverage options, while reform proponents see large-scale participation in the exchange as a necessary step towards a “singlepayer” state insurance system.

But now lobbyists representing smaller business are saying, “If they can do it, why not us?”

What was meant as a concession to firm up support for the bill may well end up seen as a crack in Shumlin’s commitment that looks like weakness. Expect more interest groups in the Statehouse to try to expand that crack as far as they can, now that they smell a little blood in the water.

(John Odum is a longtime Vermont blogger and poltical columnist. His column is pro­vided through the good offices of the Montpelier “Bridge.”)