The U.S. Labor Department’s recently announced study says we Americans do not give much protection to workers who "blow the whistle" on their employers’ safety and civil-rights violations. The Federal government will likely respond with needed protection for whistle-blowers, but will it offer protection to workers who speak out against abusive union practices?
We know something about being an unprotected whistle-blower. For eight years, our small, independent think-tank, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has served as a whistle-blower when government violates individual liberties and behaves irresponsibly with taxpayer dollars. Most recently, we have spoken out for workers who have been subject to civil-rights abuses from their union, the Washington Education Association (WEA). From our experience, we have come to believe that whistle-blowers should be listed as an endangered species.
When beleaguered teachers came to our Foundation asking for assistance in preventing the WEA from raiding their paychecks for political funds in violation of state law, it seemed a simple matter of asking the state authorities to enforce the law. The Foundation first declined the case, instead suggesting that the state would listen to teachers themselves. After months of being ignored, it soon became evident that the state would need a nudge, and the Foundation stepped in to assist the teachers.
The retaliation against EFF and the teachers came in an avalanche, which has yet to subside. First, the WEA began its campaign against the Foundation in the media and in their newsletter to 65,000 teachers. The low point was when WEA published the names, locations and businesses of our Foundations’ board members falsely advising readers that "they attack education."
Next, they filed a lawsuit against the Evergreen Freedom Foundation claiming that the Foundation violated WEA’s constitutional rights. This was followed by a series of written complaints with the IRS, Secretary of State and Public Disclosure Commission.
When these did not stifle EFF’s efforts, the union officials had a law firm prepare a detailed IRS complaint against the Foundation. Most recently, a formal complaint was filed with the Public Disclosure Commission. Just this month, the PDC unanimously dismissed these latest WEA accusations.
These are just a sampling of what happens when an independent organization dares to speak out against self-serving union officials. The retaliatory devices used against workers are far more frightening, and often more subtle. Teacher Jeff Leer of Sedro Wooley was among those first asking the union to follow state law and stop using his collective bargaining dues for politics without his permission. His efforts earned him a formal threat of a lawsuit from the WEA attorney whose wage his dues help to pay!
But the union does not always stop at threats. The WEA actually sued educators Barb Amidon of Olympia and Cindy Omlin of Mead for speaking out. They have been accused by the WEA of "unfair competition" and other equally ludicrous charges. Their trial is scheduled for July in Thurston County Superior Court.
We empathize with individuals who face retaliation for speaking up for justice. Sometimes their oppressor is an employer trying to make a buck by cutting corners on safety issues, but sometimes the oppressor is a union trying to make a buck for its political agenda by cutting corners on the workers’ constitutional rights. In both cases, intimidating the whistle-blower into silence appears an irresistible urge. I hope that the Clinton Administration’s new reforms on behalf of whistle-blowers include protecting workers from unions. Of course, the administration would have to also overlook the tremendous political benefit that President Clinton received from the union officials’ political sweatshop.
Until the freedom from forced political speech is restored to workers, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation will continue serving as a whistle-blower on their behalf.
Mr. Lund is the manager for the Teachers’ Paycheck Protection Project at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
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]?"