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 ·
|
PRESS RELEASE August 26, 2004 State workers unions poised to break
anti-strike law OLYMPIA—Despite state law prohibiting public employees from striking, the Washington Federation of State Employees (the state's largest public employee union) is threatening to strike if Governor Locke does not agree to contract demands. The 2005-07 budget will be the first drafted since lawmakers approved collective bargaining for state employees in 2002. However, the 2002 law did not alter RCW 41.56.120 which reads in full:
RCW 41.56.120 provides public employees the right to petition government if they're not satisfied with their compensation, but they DO NOT have the right to strike and hold citizens hostage to their demands. The reason for this is the assumption that public employees are providing essential services for the health and safety of state citizens. "In addition to concerns about public health and safety, this illegal negotiating ploy comes at a time when the state is facing a projected billion dollar deficit," said Jason Mercier, budget analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "Attorney General Gregoire and Governor Locke have demonstrated an unwillingness to uphold this law in the past. Hopefully the new governor and attorney general will enforce state law to protect citizens." Contact: Jason Mercier | Budget Research Analyst | 360.956.3482
|
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..." |
