OLYMPIAToday Rep. Cary Condotta (R-East Wenatchee) introduced House Bill 2256, creating a bill of rights for public employees required to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
In agencies and departments where all employees are forced to pay union dues, regardless of union membership, HB 2256 would require unions to implement several procedures to guarantee the rights of represented employees.
HB 2256 would require public employee unions to provide:
Annual written notice to employees of their right to decline membership or resign for religious reasons;
Financial information including income and expenditures and salaries of officers to each employee upon request;
Equal opportunity to participate in decisions on workplace issues (vote on the contract, calendar, etc.) for all members of the bargaining unit.
This bill would also prohibit unions from using representation dues or fees for political contributions unless affirmatively authorized by the affected employee.
Federal law currently allows objecting employees to resign from union membership, but most employees are ill-informed of this right. HB 2256 would require public-sector unions to give state workers conspicuous notification of the right to resign from the union.
Employees who resign from a union because of the union’s position on political or moral issues must still pay a “representation fee” for the cost of collective bargaining. Many union officials penalize objecting employees by refusing to allow them to participate in workplace decisions, such as voting on the contract, approving the work calendar, and choosing benefits. HB 2256 would extend equal participation rights to all employees forced to pay union fees, regardless of whether they become full-fledged members of the union.
“If a union can force a public employee to pay union dues as a condition of employment, the worker should expect accountability and disclosure from the union,” said Michael Reitz, project director for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “No one should be penalized for refusing to support the political agenda of union officials, and union officials should not be permitted to trample on individual rights.”
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]?"