The Washington State Labor Council 
Annual report summarizing the 2001 Legislative Session

A print version of this 2001 Legislative Report is also available. Email us and request a free copy.

2001 Senate Voting Record -- 2001 House Voting Record
 

2001 WSLC LEGISLATIVE REPORT 
Things Get Defensive

It’s hard to get used to the fact that Washington state has a Democrat in the Governor’s Office, a Democrat-controlled Senate and an evenly divided House, yet working people find themselves on the defensive during the legislative session.

There are lots of reasons for this, not the least of which are the 49-49 House split and the fact that the 25-24 Senate "majority" is Democratic in name only because of the presence, and anti-labor philosophy, of Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-35th).

The 2001 Legislature—all four sessions of it—offered a disturbing case study in why the public is frustrated with government, the pace of legislative action and the civility of its discourse. The transportation debacle alone, and the role played in it by House Co-Speaker Clyde Ballard (R-12th) and his entire caucus, should send good-government types screaming into the night.

But for union members and advocates for working families, the session offered a stark reminder that kneejerk Republican opposition to the concerns and needs of working people is now often joined by a contingent of Democrats. And in the case of the House, by a few of the caucus leaders.

From ergonomics repeal to "tip credit" to the continued neglect of state employees, there was no shortage of Democrats jumping on the GOP bandwagon—one emblazoned with the slogan: "You can’t be pro-business without being anti-labor."

Without question there were many noble Democrats, chief among them Co-Speaker Frank Chopp, Rep. Steve Conway, Sen. Darlene Fairley and Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, all of whose outspoken advocacy of working families saved the day on these and other issues.

But the nagging question remains, why were they having to save the day?

It’s been said that the best defense is a good offense. Maybe that’s why so many groups of citizens have decided to seek redress through initiatives rather than continue to beat their heads against the legislative wall. The negative consequences are things like conflicting demands for lower taxes and higher spending saddled to the budget. But the growing impatience for justice and fairness is fed by the outright neglect of the state legislature to tackle important issues.

And too often, the issues they do consider important enough to tackle are those sought by the business community that would negatively impact people who work for a living.

This 2001 Legislative Report describes some of the issues followed by organized labor during the session. Normally, it offers a Labor Voting Record for House and Senate members, but votes in the split House were so orchestrated that, as has been the case since 1998 (the last time there was a clear majority in the House), we will have no House Voting Record.

Ergonomics rule survive merciless attack

Coming into the 2001 session, the top legislative priority of the business associations was the defeat of the state’s new ergonomics rule, perhaps the single most significant worker safety standard established since the 1974 inception of WISHA.

Following a session-long all-out lobbying assault that ranged from arm-twisting to legislative bribery, it appears the rule will survive... for now. But count on business associations to continue in their quest.

This session much of the credit for defending this critical safety standard goes to all WSLC affiliates who kept the pressure on legislators. When the WSLC spread word of each attack, unions were quick to get that information to their members and lawmakers were flooded with letters, emails, testimony and calls on ergonomics.

Attacks on ergonomics came from the House (see Page 5 for a list of representatives who participated), but the action was focused on the Senate. SB 5882, sponsored by Sens. Shirley Winsley (R-28th) and Tim Sheldon (D-35th), would have delayed rule implementation for two years. The kicker was that the state rule would have to be rewritten to conform with the weaker federal standard, and that couldn’t happen until all legal challenges of that rule were complete.

The WSLC immediately argued that this was not a delay, but a repeal. Sure enough, later in the session, the federal OSHA ergonomics rule 10 years in the making was done away within 10 hours by President Bush.

SB 5882 passed the Senate with help from Democrats Jim Hargrove, Mary Margaret Haugen, Marilyn Rasmussen and Tim Sheldon. But once the federal rule was killed, the aforementioned Senators pushed a new version of the bill delaying implementation for four years. And in a misguided attempt to "give Labor something," it now included $2 million in new safety-and-health grants that would be available only to employee organizations. It looked and smelled like a bribe, but the WSLC strongly reminded lawmakers we were steadfast in our belief the rule will prevent tens of thousands of debilitating musculoskeletal injuries every year—and we could not be bought.

The new SB 5882 passed anyway 28-21, with support from all Republicans and the four Democrats listed above. But in the House, under the leadership of Democratic Co-Speaker Frank Chopp and Rep. Steve Conway, SB 5882 never got moved despite tremendous pressure from the business community and their advocates within the House Democratic caucus led by Co-Majority Leader Lynn Kessler.

Thanks largely to Chopp and Conway, we still have a rule that will help prevent 50,000 injuries a year.

A shameful footnote:  When they couldn’t get SB 5882 to move in the House, business lobbyists went back to the Senate and as a result of an amendment to the budget by Sen. Winsley, were able to strip the money out of Labor and Industries’ budget funding the Safety and Health Impact Grants program. Rep. Jim Clements (R-14th) let it be known in the House that the only way these existing grants’ money would be restored was if business got what it wanted on ergonomics.

This program, funded not by taxpayers but from the Workers Compensation Medical Aid Fund (financed with employer and worker contributions), was created by the joint business-labor Workers Compensation Advisory Committee two years ago in conjunction with a $400 million dividend employers received because of extraordinary market gains in the state fund.

The grants, operated by labor organizations and businesses, funded innovative safety programs for everyone from firefighters to psychiatric hospital workers, and offered safety training to business owners and even high school students.

The repeal of funding for these grants happened in the confusion of last-minute budget votes, and many legislators were not familiar with the program and its importance until it was too late to restore the funding.

Shame on business lobbyists and their legislative supporters for the petty political sacrifice of important programs designed to prevent workplace injury and death.

State employees strike back!

As the session opened, most legislators shared the same mantra: Don’t expect much except budgets (capital, operating and transportation). But even those were slow in coming.

Typically, the operating budget debate is fueled by partisan philosophy on the role of government in society. This year was no exception as Republicans sought to cut services or contract them out to the private sector, and Democrats sought to preserve existing services—a difficult task given initiatives mandating lower taxes and increased spending.

Passed in 2000, I-732 forced the Legislature to grant cost-of-living increases to educational employees that matched the rate of inflation; 3.7% in 2001 and 3.1% in 2002 for the biennium. State workers insisted they not be "delinked" from the teachers and that they should get the same raises, having watched the value of their wages lose ground in recent years. When early budget proposals failed to meet that and other demands for fair treatment, state employees voted overwhelmingly to go on strike.

Rolling walkouts began April 18 for state employees represented by SEIU District 1199NW and the Washington Federation of State Employees, AFSCME Council 28. Media attention of the strike was intense and focused not just on pay but on the connection between sufficient state funding and the quality of its services.

Pressure mounted on legislators to fix the governor’s budget proposal which set significantly smaller cost-of-living increases for state workers, higher health benefit co-pays and increased prescription costs. In addition, the issue of recruitment and retention was forcefully raised by the unions, as higher wages were demanded for job classifications previously identified as lagging far behind the private sector.

Although lawmakers repeatedly threw up their hands and said "the money’s not there," state employees reminded them that it wasn’t just initiatives that created the current budget crisis, it was their granting literally billions of dollars in tax cuts for business in recent years. Plus, the strike was a direct result of years of budget neglect when "times were good" and the state was running hefty surpluses.

Eventually the Senate managed to pass a budget proposal that granted state workers the 3.7 and 3.1% raises they deserved, but still contained the higher health care costs. A step in the right direction, this was a tremendous improvement from the governor’s initial budget proposal.

A complicating factor was the Senate’s use of the LEOFF 1 pension "surplus." Initial talks with police and firefighters aiming to enhance benefits for LEOFF 1 members broke down. (Ultimately, the Washington State Council of Firefighters was successful in persuading the legislature not to terminate the present LEOFF 1 plan or to access surplus funds in the budget.)

During the first extended Special Session, House budget negotiators Reps. Helen Sommers (D-36th) and Barry Sehlin (R-10th) finally announced their compromise "reality budget." It was a giant step backward that gave state employees smaller raises than teachers, but increased health co-pays 50% and more than doubled monthly premiums. In addition, it cut 33,000 of the working poor out of the state’s Basic Health Plan.

State employees decided to step up their rolling strikes and called a one-day statewide walkout for May 24.

Their efforts eventually paid off. In its 2nd Special Session, the Legislature passed a budget with a 3.7% pay raise in 2001 (matching teachers’) and a "reopener clause" that will allow legislators next year to achieve pay equity with the 2002 raises; price caps at current levels for doctors’ office visit co-pays and prescription drugs; fewer layoffs compared to what the governor had proposed; and funding for the top eight recruitment-and-retention job classifications for wage issues.

Congratulations state workers on a hard-earned and well-deserved victory!

No will to lead on transportation

It’s been said politics is the art of compromise.

It is ironic then that lawmakers’ inability to address our state’s transportation crisis—even after a THIRD extended session devoted to it—has been blamed on politics. There was some artistic spin-doctoring happening, but not much compromise.

Compromise is what was needed to seriously address a traffic mess everyone agrees threatens our economy and sanity. But compromise only occurs when there is a real desire to solve problems. And it all breaks down when ideology gets in the way.

Defining the components of the transportation revenue package is compromise. Deciding how much goes to public transit versus road construction is compromise. Streamlining the permit process is compromise. Allowing design-build is compromise.

Refusing to take a tax vote is ideological.

Co-Speaker Clyde Ballard and his leadership team ran over the transportation budget and the House Republican negotiators by setting up an ideological barrier to taking a tax vote.

For most of the session, they had demanded "efficiencies come first," insisting reforms in how the Department of Transportation operates be approved before considering how to pay for the fix. But when reforms recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation were approved, including the design-build change allowing some contracting out, Ballard raised the bar.

He wanted to weaken prevailing wage laws for highway workers in rural counties, a change not recommended by the Commission. Ballard and Rep. Maryann Mitchell (R-30th) made the talk show rounds insisting this must happen before they talk about taxes. But the veil quickly dropped from this charade when they couldn’t demonstrate cost savings from their proposed changes, and in fact, studies in other states showed such changes have actually increased road construction costs. In other words, this was another ideological issue. Long-sought by Republicans, even when they controlled both houses of the legislature, it always failed in the face of serious scrutiny and analysis.

By then, we were in the third special session. Negotiators from both parties finally hammered out a revenue deal, raising the gas tax (the first increase of this "road user fee" in a decade) and some other fee increases. But then it became clear that Ballard and many other House Republicans never had any intention of taking the tough vote.

They now blamed Governor Locke, saying he had agreed the tax increase should require voter approval. They wanted to pass the buck to the ballot.

The governor and legislative negotiators argued the problem was too urgent and too important to wait and risk defeat. In fact, polls throughout the winter and spring indicated a public vote on the package would fail. Why? No one likes to tax themselves and few have a statewide perspective of our transportation needs. A familiar refrain in Eastern Washington was that they don’t get their fair share of gas-tax dollars, when in fact, most counties there get a disproportionately high share of those revenues.

People have an easier time deciding to tax themselves if they can see the local results, as with school bond issues. So putting regional transportation packages to a vote of regional voters makes sense.

But statewide transportation packages need to be voted on by those people who have—or should have—a statewide perspective on the transportation crisis. People whose job it is to look out for our state. People who are leaders.

Where have all the leaders gone?

Lawmakers from both parties are quick to complain about legislation-by-initiative and the bind it has put us in. But by refusing to vote a statewide transportation project-and-revenue package, House Republicans have admitted that they don’t have the will or desire to lead on this critical issue impacting the economy and quality of life in our state.

There are many more stories included in the print version of the WSLC's 2001 Legislative Report.  Email us and request a free copy.

2001 Senate Voting Record -- 2001 House Voting Record

Copyright © 2001  Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO