If you want
to get this
newsletter
via email...
The Washington State
Labor Council's
pretty-much-weekly report on the
2004 session
Check out the WSLC Legislative Tracker -- Labor-related bills and their status.
SPECIAL Update (2-25) Washington deemed "ground zero" for offshoring legislation
SPECIAL Update (2-24) WFSE, SEIU weigh in on supplemental budget proposals
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23 (PDF version)
MAD KOWTOW!
Senate GOP continues business bowdown;
House Democrats join inThe flurry of floor activity preceding last Tuesday's cutoff deadline confirmed a disturbing truth and revealed a brand-new one. Despite new leadership, Senate Republicans are continuing to use their 25-24 majority to ram through an anti-worker agenda on workers' compensation, minimum wage and other important issues. But disturbingly, so-called "moderate" (read: pro-corporate) Democrats in the House appear to have control of that body's agenda at the expense of traditional Democratic constituencies and values.
The Senate continued it's all-out assault on the workers' compensation system this week, raising to eight the number of bills passed to cut benefits and give employers broad new authority over injured workers. The latest, SB 6317, passed Tuesday and grants broad new authority to self-insured companies to make their own claims decisions.
This Boeing-backed bill would allow self-insured employers to choose their own independent medical examiners, to deny claimants access to their own files, to determine whether workers are eligible for vocational rehabilitation, to punish workers for the Department of Labor and Industries' failure to act in a timely manner, and much more.
Also last week, the Senate approved SB 5697 freezing the state minimum wage. Rather than be honest and say they are freezing it, this bill links future cost-of-living increases to the unemployment rate, implying the two are connected.
The state minimum wage is neither cause nor cure for high unemployment. All lawmakers who supported this know full well that, for reasons that have nothing to do with the minimum wage, Washington's unemployment rate has been higher than the national average in 30 of the past 33 years. They are trying to avoid taking the politically unpopular vote of rescinding voter-approved COLAs under the guise of a phony new unemployment formula. Every Republican except Sen. Shirley Winsley (R-Fircrest) voted for SB 5697, and every Democrat voted against except Sens. Jim Hargrove (D-Hoquiam), Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Is.) and Tim Sheldon ("D"-Potlatch).
But in the House, there was also disturbing news: the inexplicable demise of all three outsourcing bills. In particular, House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-Seattle) made a commitment to the Washington State Labor Council that he would bring HB 3187 to a vote before cutoff. That bill, as described in the Feb. 13 WSLC Legislative Update, would ban state contract work from flowing overseas. Last Tuesday, Chopp proceeded to break that commitment and no vote happened.
Since that time, Chopp has revived the bill by declaring it "necessary for implementation of the budget," and therefore exempted from cutoff. But the question remains, why didn't the House vote on HB 3187 when they had the chance?
There is no doubt Speaker Chopp faced pressure within the House Democratic caucus from representatives who prefer not to take votes on bills opposed by the business community. To them we ask, where are your Democratic principles?
Our tax dollars should not subsidize job creation in foreign countries. That's a pretty simple concept. It's an idea we can all agree has broad public support, especially in a state so focused on job creation and accountability to taxpayers.
But (oh, no!) the business community opposes this bill. The Association of Washington Business, apparently putting its free-trade-at-all-costs ideology above the interests of local businesses who could benefit from HB 3187, says "no." The AWB's testimony against the bill was mind numbingly weak. They argued not so much against the bill as against its necessity, saying there's not enough evidence yet to support claims that we are shipping significant taxpayer-funded jobs overseas.
First of all, there IS plenty of evidence this is happening. A report from the governor’s office shows dozens of state agencies have outsourced work and sent millions in state revenues overseas. But even if we set that aside and the AWB is right that it's not prevalent, what's the harm then in restricting it?!
Instead of kowtowing to weak AWB objections, House Democratic leaders should have asked themselves, what is the harm in voting on this bill? Is the only downside getting a "bad vote" on their AWB records?
NEWS FLASH TO DEMOCRATS: No matter how many votes and tax breaks you give them, the business organizations are coming after you this fall. Today they are in your offices asking for help and support, but March 12, the day after the session ends, you become a "job-killing" Democrat no matter what you have done for them.
It doesn't even matter if you lack a serious challenger, they STILL will oppose you. Look at last fall's special election. The AWB opposed Rep. Brian Blake, who had a 57% AWB voting record, and endorsed a right-to-work supporting chicken farmer who lost his previous year's race with a pathetic 32% of the vote! Why? Because Rep. Blake has "D" after his name!
Oh, Company X may write you a campaign check, but their real money -- the unrestricted amounts of cash -- go into PACs like "United for Washington" to finance negative campaign ads and mail attacking YOU and all other Democrats. Just ask Rep. Laura Ruderman (D-Kirkland). She's got a 51% AWB voting record, but in her last election, her constituents received a last-minute "hit piece" in the mail saying Ruderman was forcing sex predators to move into their district. Among the list of corporations that paid for that mail, some of which also contributed to her campaign, was her former employer Microsoft.
The bottom line is that House Democrats have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting on HB 3187. They can have every state representative go on record whether they support state agencies contracting out jobs overseas. That's a bright-line test of who supports accountability to taxpayers and a real job-growth agenda, and who is merely a corporate toady regurgitating hollow competitiveness rhetoric while defending unpopular and destructive economic practices.
Last Tuesday, when they could have been voting on this important issue, the House found time instead to pass yet another new tax break, a $14 million sales tax exemption on fitness club memberships. Sponsor Rep. Dave Quall (D-Bellingham) said the new tax break fulfills a promise to eliminate the tax when the state was out of its fiscal crisis.
Apparently, some promises are kept. Speaker Chopp should have kept his commitment and called for the vote on HB 3187, and he should have done so with confidence. He may have another chance; we strongly urge the House to make it happen.
And by the way, it will come as news to 20,000 newly uninsured children in poor families, state employees and teachers whose pay is still frozen, and countless others who traditionally support the Democratic Party that the budget crisis is over.
"Lawful" protects workers from blacklisting
One of the other bills House Democrats found time to pass before last Tuesday's cutoff was HB 2779. Sponsored by Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island), this bill grants employers legal immunity when they give negative job "references" unless the information they give out to other employers is knowingly false or misleading.
While not enamored with the bill, the WSLC believes it is critical that it include an important protection for workers. Employers must not have legal immunity if they give harmful information about an employees' "lawful" activities. This critically important language protects union supporters, people who utilize family and medical leave, and others from being blacklisted by employers.
But the word is that the word "lawful" may be stripped from HB 2779 in the Senate. Why? You guessed it. Because some employers say so. An attorney for Group Health Cooperative sent legislators a letter saying they did not want the word "lawful" in there because they want to be able to exchange information with other employers about absenteeism, whether or not it's related to our legal rights.
In other words, they may prefer not to hire somebody who utilized unpaid family leave to care for a gravely ill spouse, parent or child. And you can bet they'd like to know whether a prospective employee is one of those union "rabble-rousers."
As it is, this bill represents a good-faith compromise to address a long-standing employer concern about legal liability in giving references. Even with the "lawful" language, the WSLC is not crazy about this bill. Without that language, it is an unacceptable removal of workers' basic right to seek redress when they are blacklisted for exercising their legal rights.
Again, House Speaker Frank Chopp has made a commitment to the WSLC that he will not agree to the removal of "lawful" if that's what the Senate does. Stay tuned...
Potential Senate chicanery on home care
Service Employees International Union Local 775, the union representing the 26,000 independent provider home care workers in this state, has learned that some State Senators may seek to undermine the collective bargaining process by eliminating their right to "interest arbitration" if they can’t reach an agreement at the bargaining table. (See today's developments on this.)
HB 2933 passed the House last week unanimously -- as in 95-to-Nothing -- to make some common-sense housekeeping changes to the bargaining language as established by Initiative 775, the popular measure that granted these workers bargaining rights two years ago. But some Senators have indicated they may try to amend HB 2933 to take away the "interest arbitration" language from these workers, who do not have the right to strike to resolve contract differences. If that occurs there can be absolutely no doubt that opposition to SEIU 775 and home care workers is rooted in plain old union-busting. Why else would Senators do this?
Not only should State Senators in the Ways and Means Committee pass this bipartisan bill without any amendment chicanery, they should act now to advance HB 1777 which funds the scaled-back home care contract, and to approve a similar raise for the 8,000 private sector home care workers, a quarter of whom work for unionized agencies. That bill also passed the House with bipartisan support.
SEIU 775 has demonstrated good faith by renegotiating their contract, scaling it back and addressing the concerns expressed by lawmakers who rejected it last year. The state announced Thursday that the slowly recovering economy will bring $76 million in unexpected tax revenue for state coffers -- more than three times the cost of this contract. The money is there for things considered a priority. (Lawmakers have demonstrated this by passing an ever-growing list of new tax breaks this session -- before hearing this latest good news on revenue.)
The underpaid and under-appreciated people who provide in-home health care deserve to be our priority. They do not deserve to have their interests bogged down by petty partisanship.
PREVIOUS EDITIONS of the 2004 WSLC Legislative Update:
Feb. 13 -- Outsourcing: Let's vote on it! (EFCA, workers' comp, charter schools)
Feb. 6 -- The politics of workers' comp (R&D and TIFs, genetic testing, living wage ordinances)
Jan. 27 -- We pay for Wal-Mart greed -- always (health care, workers' comp, R&D tax breaks)
Jan. 22 -- We're No. 1, which doesn't "suck" (min. wage, R&D tax breaks, apprenticeship)
Jan. 16 -- R&D needs Reporting & Disclosure (plus workers' comp, health care, and home care)
Copyright © 2004 Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO