| |
Governor alters
voter-approved paycheck protection law
Initiative preventing unions from using dues from
nonmembers for political activities without their consent undermined
Deputy Republican
Leader Doug Ericksen believes voter sentiment is being pushed
aside by a bill signed last week that fundamentally alters a 1992
initiative preventing unions from using dues from nonmembers for
political activities without their consent. The 42nd District lawmaker
also believes nonmembers are being treated unfairly, while the governor
approves a law that directly benefits some of her biggest campaign
contributors.
“We’re seeing one-party control pre-empting a U.S. Supreme Court
decision and, more importantly, ignoring the will of the voters who sent
a clear message,” said Ericksen, R-Ferndale. “The governor is failing to
protect the voices of people who are not union members but are directly
impacted by the actions of unions.”
House Bill 2079 concerns the use of fees paid by those people who
decline to join a union. These “agency shop fees” are the counterpart of
dues paid by union members. The measure permits union officials to use
funds to influence elections or operate a political committee even if
they are commingled with agency shop fees – as long as union member dues
total more than the political expenditures.
House Bill 2079 undermines the campaign reform law created by
Initiative 134 in 1992, which prohibits labor organizations from
using agency shop fees to make contributions or expenditures to
“influence an election or to operate a political committee, unless
affirmatively authorized.” I-134 passed with 72 percent of the vote.
Commingling is at the root of a lawsuit that charges Washington’s
largest teachers’ union with violating I-134 and is awaiting a ruling
from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ericksen wonders why an emergency clause is included in House Bill 2079.
In her own words, the governor has defined the emergency clause as: “An
emergency clause is used when immediate enactment of a bill is necessary
to preserve the public peace, health, or safety or when it is necessary
for the support of state government. It should be used sparingly because
its application has the effect of limiting citizens’ right to
referendum.”
“Is the public peace, health or safety at risk if unions are prohibited
from using commingling funds for an extra 15 days?” said Ericksen. “The
governor has not applied her previous definition of ‘emergency clause’
to House Bill 2079. She should show some courage and apply her own
definition despite the fact her political contributors may be opposed.”
Ericksen believes the scenario is part of a larger problem of having the
state’s bargaining position compromised.
“This legislation is part of a larger problem – and that is legislation
that directly benefits major campaign contributors and groups with whom
the governor negotiates directly for wages and benefits. It’s clear
there is a conflict of interest and the state’s bargaining position is
compromised,” said Ericksen. “We see it with contracts for public
employees and with gambling compacts for tribes. It’s simply not in the
best interest of the state when any governor is across the table
negotiating with groups that give him or her large campaign
contributions.”
In a May 17, 2007,
Wall
Street Journal article, Michael Reitz of the Olympia-based Evergreen
Freedom Foundation was quoted as saying, “You should only be as strong
as the support behind you. And it shouldn’t be artificially inflated
with coerced donations.”
# # #
For more information, contact:
John
Handy, Assistant Director: (360) 786-5758
|
|