Bill prohibiting the use of union dues without permission introduced in Senate
OLYMPIAA bill has been introduced in the Senate that would require labor organizations to account for the use of dues and inform members of the bargaining unit when dues are to be spent for political purposes. Senate Bill 5571 is sponsored by Senators Hewitt, Honeyford, McCaslin, Delvin and Mulliken.
The bill amends RCW 42.17.680(3) and adds a new section to chapter 42.17 of the RCW.
Among its provisions, Senate Bill 5571:
prohibits labor organizations from deducting dues from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes without the written request of the employee;
requires public sector unions that collect “representation fees” from non-union employees pursuant to a union security clause to segregate these funds. Agency fees may be expended for the purposes of collective bargaining, but cannot be spent for political purposes without the prior authorization of the employee;
requires public sector unions to maintain a separate deposit account for any political expenditures, keep itemized reports of all income and expenditures, and annually file reports with the Public Disclosure Commission;
requires unions to notify bargaining unit employees of the intended use of funds within the deposit accounts; and
provides a private right of action for any employee whose funds were deducted in violation of the law: recovery of three times the amount deducted or $1,000, whichever is greater, as well as costs and attorney’s fees.
“Senate Bill 5711 would require unions to be accountable to the members they represent,” said Michael Reitz, project director for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “Employees forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment have a right to know how their money is used. No one should be forced to pay for someone else’s political views in order to keep their job.”
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]?"