EFF considers mandatory membership for public employees
Foundation cites WEA report on funding as "food for thought"
Citing a recent report issued by the Washington Education Association, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation today announced it is giving serious consideration to the merits of mandatory public employee membership and automatic payroll deduction, despite its long-standing position that such practices are a violation of individual liberty and free speech.
The WEA has loudly criticized EFF for its voluntary contributions from thousands of members around the state and dozens of private foundations around the nation who choose to support the foundation’s public policy research work.
"It finally dawned on us: maybe the WEA is trying to tell us something," said Bob Williams, EFF’s president. "We think maybe the union wants us to know there is a more lucrative way to get support for our work — one that doesn’t require the risk of allowing people to decide for themselves if they want to support us. We know people need us, so why wait for them to realize it?"
The foundation is still working out the details for mandatory membership, but Williams says they are looking into running an initiative that would require all public employees in the state to join.
"We like the idea of increasing our membership to 447,300 by November," said Williams. "The WEA was able to get mandatory membership for 74,000 teachers and that’s inspiring. Plus, with Governor Locke in office, we can feel certain our membership will continue to grow."
Foundation staff are excited at the possibility of pay raises if they can get voters to pass the mandatory membership initiative.
"WEA staff members get average compensation of $82,000 a year," said Marsha Richards, communications director. "We would also like to make that much money."
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]?"