EFF's Election Report ·
Gonzales Letter ·
Welfare Reform ·
Boeing Contract ·
Budget & Taxes ·
Business Climate ·
K-12 Fact Sheet ·
EFF Health Study ·
Paycheck Protection ·
Transportation ·
Unemployment Ins. ·
Receive Updates ·
Bookmark EFF ·
Contribute ·
EFF in the News ·
How Can I Help? ·
Join EFF ·
Media Center ·
|
LETTER TO EDITOR June 29, 2003 Union members should know
how dues are spent In his letter, Mark Collins suggests the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has some questionable motives for giving thousands of state employees an opportunity to comment on proposed union disclosure rules. Current law allows union officials to force their representation services on workers as a condition of employment. There are no limits on how much they can charge for this forced representation. No law limits how the money may be spent, and no law requires union officials to tell workers how the money was used. Since 1991, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has been an advocate for individual liberty. In the interest of curbing the unjust use of force, we have sought to challenge union officials' abuse of forced dues. Who should make the decision about campaign contributions? Workers or union officials? When union officials use force to collect money and then use the funds for political and ideological causes that the individuals would not likely support voluntarily -- well, that is the same injustice as government abuse of taxpayers. So when the opportunity came to aid frustrated public employees in seeking minimal disclosure from union officials, of course we helped. Transparency is a progressive policy that society imposes on others with power over our money: government, banks, stock-issuing companies. Accountability to workers requires the same of union officials. I find it amusing that Collins wants to suggest an evil motive behind our good deed -- or is he suggesting that giving union members a look at how their dues are spent is also an evil deed? Click here to see the letter in The Olympian (second letter). Contact: Jami
Lund, Project Manager, Paycheck Protection
|
1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question: "Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?" - Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46) Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..." |
