Union bosses fail to win workers to "No 695" campaign
They should have seen it coming, but that did not dissuade union bosses from spending $470,123 to fight the $30 car tab initiative (I-695), a measure which gained overwhelming passage in the Nov. 2 election.
"Union bosses knew that the $30 car tab initiative was widely popular prior to the election, but that did not stop them from forcing workers to fund their ‘No 695' campaign," said Bob Williams, president of Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "When Initiative 695 passed with a hearty 58 percent of the vote, it simply proved what EFF has said all along: Union bosses are more interested in carrying out their own political agendas than in defending the free-speech rights of their own workers."
Washington state has one of the highest car taxes in the country, a fact which brought high turnout to the polls during the General Election. Polling showed early on that the tax-relief measure enjoyed popular support, particularly among working families supposedly represented by union officials.
However, union bosses took more than $450,000 in involuntary contributions to the "No on 695" campaign from workers. Unlike other advocacy groups involved in elections that must rely on voluntary donations, union officials are able to take political contributions from workers without their consent through payroll deductions or by transferring money from workers’ general-dues payments.
"There are two groups in the nation that take money from a worker’s paycheck without his or her consent: the IRS and unions," EFF’s Williams said.
Click here for a pre-election tally of union contributions to "No 695." It does not include money used to mail campaign literature to union members or to pay union officials who work to assure that members vote "correctly" or soft-money contributions, which can total hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of dollars.
Union workers opposed to forced-political contributions will be pleased to note the following: On November 18, the Washington State Supreme Court will hear argument on whether unions can use mandatory dues for campaigns, like the one to defeat Initiative 695. Perhaps a just ruling in this case will make unions stop exploiting workers for political gain by requiring unions to honor the statutory requirement of getting permission for payroll deductions used for political purposes.
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]?"