Paycheck Violation
Washington Supreme Court to rule on meaning
of 1992 campaign finance initiative

The question is not: Did the state’s largest teachers’ union spend school employees’ union dues on politics without their consent? That fact in undisputed. It did.

The question before the Washington Supreme Court is whether the action violates Initiative 134, a campaign-finance ballot measure passed by state voters in 1992 and consistently opposed by unions.

The Washington Education Association maintains it did not violate the law. The nonprofit Evergreen Freedom Foundation and members of Teachers for a Responsible Union seek to prove that the union did. So teachers, union officials and lawyers went to court last Thursday to make their cases. A decision is not expected for four to six months.

The part of the initiative in question is known as the paycheck protection statute. RCW 42.17.680(3) reads: "No employer or other person or entity responsible for the disbursement of funds in payment of wages or salaries may withhold or salaries for contributions to political committees or for use as political contributions except upon the written request of the employees."

The union says that since the words "labor union" were not included in the statute, WEA and other unions are exempt from the law and the tears’ union is free of any wrongdoing. WEA also says that it does not take money from workers’ paycheck; the school district takes the money out and then gives it over to the union. The school districts, in turn, say they are also free from wrongdoing because it would be an unfair labor practice for them to ask the union how it will spend the money. Therefore, since they do not really know for sure whether the money will be used in part for political contributions, the districts cannot gather consent from their employees.

The foundation and the teachers’ group argue that "other person or entity" includes union, too, and that I-134 voters intended to require unions and employers to gain workers’ permission before giving portions of their paychecks to political causes.

If the court ends up siding with WEA, letting the union off on a technicality, concerned voters must rally together and make a change. Either the Legislature can change the law, or people can push a ballot initiative that frees school employees from the union’s exploitaion in the future.

Win or lose, the union is not acting in good faith when it uses employees’ mandatory union dues on politics without their consent. All school employees should be entitled to keep their money from funding political causes or candidates they oppose.

-Elizabeth Hovde,
for the editorial board
November 24, 1999

Copyright 1999 by The Columbian Publishing Co.
P.O. Box 180, Vancouver, WA 98666.
No part of this publication may be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or reproduced in any way, including but not limited to photocopy, photograph, magnetic or other record, without the prior agreement and written permission of the published.

www.columbian.com