As promised, the state of Washington is going ahead with plans to fire state workers standing up for the principle that if they are not union members, they should not be forced to pay union dues. New labor contracts negotiated between the state and unions such as the Washington Federation of State Employees now leave no choice for workers, thanks to the "union shakedown" - oops, "union security" clause.
Here's the text of a Nov. 29, 2005 letter to an employee from the recently-promoted and award-winning Peggy Jo Zimmerman, Acting Assistant Administrator, Human Resources Division, Washington Employee Security Department.
It has been brought to my attention that you have been employed in a bargaining unit position covered by a Washington Federation of State Employees (WSFE) collective bargaining agreement since July 1, 2005, and the union has not received your Payroll Deduction Authorization card or payment of dues or a fee as of Sept. 30, 2005.Under Article 40.3, Union Security, of the new collective bargaining agreement between WFSE and the State of Washington, union security is a condition of employment requiring all employees covered by this agreement to either become a member of the union and pay membership dues, or, as a non-member, pay a fee no later than July 30, 2005.
As an agency, we will have to begin the termination process for your position because we understand you are not paying your required union dues or fees. Please respond to the union for payment of your dues or fees by Dec. 12, 2005, or we will have no choice but to begin the termination process.
Pay union "dues or fees" or lose your job. Washington state government in the Age of Gregoire.
In this live chat Q&A transcript from The Olympian last July, Washington Department of Personnel Director Eva Santos makes clear the Gregoire Administration was perfectly happy to join with state employee unions in forcing non-union employees to pay union dues or fees, even if many were hired under no such condition.
Cornonda, Olympia: "The union security clause in the new contract requires state employees to pay the union, even though they were not hired under those terms. Why was a 'grandfather clause' not included in the union security clause?"Santos: "...The law establishes a basic foundation of giving the unions the ability to charge for their services -- in essence what was negotiated was, yes, they could do that. The union didn't ask for any grandfather clause; we didn't ask either -- it wasn't part of the negotiating process. It's not a requirement that we have a grandfather clause related to that."
Metinks its about time for that contemplated ballot initiative to fix this problem.
Hat tip: Thurston Pundits.
UPDATE: Link to a copy of the termination letter.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at December 01, 2005 10:17 AM | Email ThisExtortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to his person, reputation, or property. Euphemistically, refraining from doing harm is sometimes called protection.
Blackmail is one kind of extortion -- specifically, extortion by threatening another's reputation with the disclosure of incriminating statements (true or false) about him. Even if it is not criminal to disclose the information, it constitutes extortion to demand money or other consideration not to disclose it. [1]
Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In robbery, the offender steals goods from the victim whilst threatening him with immediate force. In extortion, the victim willingly turns the goods over to avoid a threatened later violence or other harm.
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. Libertarians and Objectivists consider taxation a form of legalized extortion. The great increase in often-frivolous lawsuits in recent times has led to situations where some feel that others are abusing the legal system in their own extortion schemes, threatening to sue (for instance over alleged trademark infringement or defamation) in cases where the prospective defendant did no wrong, but feels compelled to settle and make a payment anyway to avoid expensive litigation.
The State's search engine for searching the laws it down right now... But I'll find out how our laws define "Extortion" later...
Posted by: Jeremy on December 1, 2005 10:41 AMGo beyond the intiative, make WA a right to work State.
Posted by: JCM on December 1, 2005 11:06 AMClearly state government lacks any sense of right and wrong, or personal and constitutional rights. Extortion of employees, election fraud, perverted nude statues, mega waste of tax dollars...Washington is a smelly place to live these days.
Posted by: dl on December 1, 2005 11:06 AMSomething similar happened to workers at Boeing, I believe it was five years ago. Drafters had to join SPEEA. My husband worked at Boeing and was forced to join SPEEA or lose his job. We started paying dues so he could keep his job. What is the ruling that some of your dues can go to a charity of your choice instead of the union? I agree with JCM - make WA a right to work State!
Thanks
Posted by: katie on December 1, 2005 11:29 AMFunny how this results when union dues aren't paid out of conscience, but when teachers go on strike, the gov. just ignores it and calls it a matter of principle, or such!
Posted by: Misty on December 1, 2005 11:59 AMThe former attorney general et al are paying back their minions for a job well done in getting her a new title.
Or is this just another redefinition of words and facts foisted upon us by our Democratic friends?
Posted by: fred on December 1, 2005 12:04 PMWhen Gregoire sees that the Right to Work Initiative is mounting steam, she will panic. So will the Unions. This Civil War is long overdue.
If I wanted to be in the Union, then I should pay. If I don't want to be in the Union then I shouldn't pay.
I am glad that liberals steal my money, otherwise what would I do with it?
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on December 1, 2005 12:27 PMThat's the real condition of union membership; the willingness to hand over money to elect Democrats.
It's pretty sick!
Posted by: Mike on December 1, 2005 01:24 PMI was never notified that a fee was mandatory it just started being deducted several months ago. When I asked about it they just said it was mandatory. I get a lot of pressure to join the union but would certainly not join this one.
I have always wondered why....now I guess I have the reason...
Posted by: Becky on December 1, 2005 01:39 PMIN HIS WORLD THER WOULD BE NO DIVERSITY TRAINNING, GAY MARRIAGE, ABORTION ON DEMAND, GUN CONTROL, ENVIORMENTAL WACK-JOBS, ANTI-AMERICAN PROTESTS, THE U.N., FRANCE, ILLEGAL ALLIENS, MULTICULTRALISM, LOCAL UNION WHATEVER #, N.O.W., A.A.R.P., A.C.L.U., NEW AGE MOVEMENT, MICHEAL MOORE, GREEN PEACE, SIERRA CLUB, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, TED KENNDY, RON SIMS, DEAN LOGAN, HOLLYWOOD ELITES! JUST TO NAME A FEW.
WITH QUEEN CHRISTINE, "THE BUCK DOEN'T EVEN SLOW DOWN HERE!"
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASHI on December 1, 2005 01:51 PMPerhaps you can explain to me why I should pay you to care for your own family member? My family feels it is our responsibility to care for ourselves, why should your burden be passed on to me---and all the other tax payers?
Is this somehow just?
I'm not picking on you, but I have a genuine desire to understand why this program even exists. Personally, I wouldn't even think of taking money from others for my own family needs. Perhaps that is just me.
Posted by: Nothing Personal on December 1, 2005 01:54 PMIf you want to contribute your political portion to charity they don't let you choose the charity!
Didn't Janet Reno go after Microsoft for being a monopoly?
They allowed the 41st district Democrats to use a conference room downstairs for no rent, the same night as our meeting.
Members of Local 21 call and complain that their website is a lie!
Posted by: Katie on December 1, 2005 02:07 PMThere are many, many parental care providers for minor and adult disabled children. These disabled children require 24-hour support and supervison. Most of the families have foregone lucrative careers in order to be able to care for their children and provide that 24-hour care. The costs of raising and caring for a disabled child run, through the lifetime of that child, into the millions. That's no exaggeration. Parent care providers are shouldering most of the cost, are caring for their child themselves, and receive a small stipend for doing so. It's cost effective for the state, and provides the best possible loving care for the child. These parents should be honored because they have devoted all of their financial stability, time, and lives to providing extremely complicated care for their child. Last year, the state informed them they must either join a union, or pay union dues for being the "official" professional care giver for their own child. It is indeed extortion.
Posted by: katomar on December 1, 2005 02:14 PMWhich is extortion, the union dues or the state subsidized family care?
Posted by: huckleberry on December 1, 2005 02:41 PMA right to work initiative invalidates "union security" clauses in all contracts. It applies to both private and public sector workplaces and prevents every union within a state from forcing workers to pay dues or fees to keep their job.
While you'll find a lot of opposition around here to gov't handouts. I don't think you find much opposition to helping those in real need.
Helping a family with a disabled child is far different from enabling the self destructive behaviors of tent city.
A family with a a disabled child has enough burdens, forcing them to support a union is simply disgusting.
Posted by: JCM on December 1, 2005 03:51 PMAnd Mikey:
Thank you for getting straight to the heart of the matter. Money makes the Dems and unions go round!
How do we get Christine Gregoire, Ron Sims, Dean Logan, Sam Reed, and Norm Maleng to stop paying their union dues??
Because as Mikey pointed out, no matter how badly they screw up in their job performance, the only way to get rid of them is to fire them for not paying union dues.
Posted by: Larry on December 1, 2005 05:00 PMUnfortunately, I feel we may be stuck with this practice until either secession by right-thinkers or the end of time, whichever comes first.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on December 1, 2005 11:34 PMThe Governor, her executive officers and their direct employees are not covered by unions. Legislators and legislative staff are not covered by unions either. I am pretty sure this has to do with the non-exempt status of their appointment, i.e., they can be fired for political reasons.
As a special note, the majority of employees in a workplace must vote to certify a union as the bargaining representative. However, in this case, the WFSE bypassed certification by a majority of workers by including the "union security" clause in the contract.
Presumably, the union didn't have to get majority support and get certified because the union already represented a small number of employees in most departments. The WFSE just had to get the contract approved. Sadly, this tactic bypassed the democratic process implemented to protect the wishes of a majority of employees.
For Nothing Personal... I use all of the money I earn as a caregiver ($500) to supplement my adult daughters disability income($300)so she can have a few of the things any other 36 year old would have if she lived and worked outside of the home.
If we hired a stranger or sent our daughter to a group home the caregiver would receive closer to $1500 a month (from the state) and the group home would receive money for her room and board etc. (from the state). As parents we pay for all expenses (AND DO SO GLADLY).
Might not be a winner, but it will get this problem more public notice than it is getting right now.
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on December 2, 2005 10:53 AMBut take a moment to look at the preceding two comments, especially Jim's, which was not directed at your situation, but which I want to direct at you.
By being paid by the state to take care for your daughter, you are working for me. How good of a job are you doing taking care of your daughter. Do you mind if I drop in to your house from time to time to see if my money is being spent well? What about firing you. If I don't like the job you are doing, should I fire you as your daughter's caregiver? If you are judged not qualified to be her paid caregiver, are you qualified to be her unpaid caregiver?
Now I am sure you are a fine caregiver, and I don't want you to be upset by my rhetoric. But you do see the can of worms that are opened by placing the yolk of state employment around your neck? Is it worth it? Does the state visit your home regularly? Should they? Is this the best we can do?
Posted by: huckleberry on December 2, 2005 12:19 PMDon't get your dauber down freddy...
I-912 lost ONLY because of the desperation of businesses and commuters in KingCo. That's it. A Right to Work Initiative would have an entirely different line-up of supporters.
The unions are strangling the economy here & Washington is not getting new businesses here because of it.
I hope that petitions will begin circulating soon.
Posted by: Clean House on December 2, 2005 08:05 PMSo, Boeing workers, why not sue pursuant to Beck?
Posted by: James L. Buchal on December 7, 2005 04:58 PM