OLYMPIA, WA - Labor unions in Washington state are pushing for a bill that will gut the state’s voter-approved “paycheck protection” law. HB 2822, introduced by Representative Sandra Romero (D), seeks to amend the requirements of Initiative 134, the campaign finance reform initiative passed by 72 percent of the state’s voters in 1992.
Washington was the first state in the nation to pass a law protecting the paychecks of workers from unauthorized political deductions by employers and labor unions.
“Romero’s bill is anti-worker and pro-Big Labor,” said Jami Lund, a project manager for the Olympia-based Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a long-time advocate of free speech and fair elections.
When I-134 passed, 87 percent of the state’s teachers said “No” to voluntarily contributing even one dollar per month to the political action committee of the Washington Education Association (WEA). The WEA has since been sued - twice - by Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire for violating worker protections in I-134, and has been penalized more than $1 million for its illegal political activity.
Romero’s bill, reportedly introduced at the prodding of labor unions from whom she receives significant campaign support, would remove language in the statute that requires unions to obtain annual written permission from workers before taking money from their paychecks for political contributions. The amendment would instead require unions to get permission only once, after which workers would be permanently signed up for political deductions unless they affirmatively object.
A recent poll commissioned by EFF shows that 76 percent of the state’s teachers believe the law should require tougher accountability standards than those currently in place.
"It looks like union officials are pressing the majority party for election support paybacks," said Lund. "Union officials know many workers do not support their political agenda, so they want easier access to workers' paychecks with less accountability for their political campaigns."
A hearing on the bill is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday, February 5th) at 1:30pm in the House Government Committee. EFF has been asked to testify about the effects of the bill.
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]?"