If you want
to get this
newsletter
via email...
The Washington State
Labor Council's
pretty-much-weekly report on the 2005 session
FRIDAY, APRIL 8 (PDF version)
Just the U.I. facts, SenatorsLet's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Let's assume that the legislators who keep reinforcing myths about EHB 2255 and our Unemployment Insurance (UI) system are simply relying too heavily on the talking points that some lobbying group has handed them.
WSLC Legislative Tracker™
The award-winning website of the Washington State Labor Council includes the WSLC Legislative Tracker™. Check it out at www.wslc.org/legis/tracker.htm. That's where you'll find up-to-the-moment-we-get-to-it status reports on many key working families bills before the 2005 legislature. Let's also assume that all lawmakers have compassion for people who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own; people who face losing their cars, homes and even their families while they struggle to find new jobs. Organized labor knows that just because certain legislators speak about the UI issue only in terms of how it impacts employers, they really must care about these families, too. They must be open to at least considering this issue as something more than just another business-labor dispute that requires them to toe the party line -- or the other party's line, if they're a Maverick®.
And finally, let's assume that some legislators just don't like to talk about the economic benefit of UI because it sounds kind of... well... socialistic. But surely they understand the benefit of injecting money into communities hard-hit by unemployment, and the harm caused by suddenly removing that money, not just to families but to businesses.
You see, most corporate lobbyists like to suggest the 2003 UI changes had something to do with our state's fledgling economic rebound. So maybe some of our elected officials don't understand those changes have yet to create a single job. The truth is, the recovery happened despite the UI changes, because so far it's been all pain and no gain. UI taxes went up for all employers in 2004 to finance the transition to a new UI tax system, while a hundred million dollars in benefits have been removed from the state economy.
In fact, now that we think about it, the only hesitation some state senators have about passing the House-approved EHB 2255 may just be the result of misinformation. So as a public service, WSLC Legislative Update offers the following Talking Point Redux™, chock-full o' facts about the UI system, the changes made in 2003, and EHB 2255, the bill that stops the bleeding on drastic benefit cuts while retaining employer-sought reforms and savings.
TALKING POINT: EHB 2255 would "destroy the reforms we worked so hard to negotiate." (Source: Rep. Beverly Woods, R-Kingston, April 1 House floor debate)
REDUX: Despite our collective cringe at the use of the word "negotiate" here, let's set that aside for now.
EHB 2255 makes two changes -- on a temporary basis -- that return Washington to the national mainstream on UI benefits, and leave intact the majority of the business-sought changes in 2003’s overhaul of the system. One, it restores the "liberal construction" language that means in gray-area cases, the worker gets the benefit of the doubt, as is the case in 43 other states' UI laws. Two, it restores the two-quarter averaging for calculating benefits, but at a lower multiplier than before. Only seven states use the most punitive four-quarter formula now in place.
These two changes are revenue neutral and won’t impact the UI Trust Fund. They are financed by one-time federal dollars and a small across-the-board benefit cut. Benefits are merely reallocated to stop the bleeding for workers disproportionately harmed in 2003.
EHB 2255 sunsets in two years, during which time a task force will study and recommend a permanent solution that’s fair to employers and workers. Legislators can take or leave that recommendation. If they leave it, we go back to the way things are today.
Here are just some of the elements of 2003’s changes that EHB 2255 leaves in place:
Cutting the maximum benefit duration from 30 to 26 weeks.
Cutting maximum benefits from 70% of the state’s average annual wage to 63%.
Imposing one of the country's most severe misconduct statutes, which can be used to deny benefits to fired workers.
Restricting eligibility by, among other things, severely reducing what constitutes "good cause" for quitting a job. The Association of Washington Business estimates that the eligibility restrictions enacted in 2003 will save the system $65 million in benefits. (AWB press release, 3-30-05)
Creating a new employer-backed tax structure designed to address UI tax equity issues.
Saying the EHB 2255 "destroys" 2003 reforms is hyperbole of the highest order, and fails the straight-face test.
TALKING POINT: Our UI system is being exploited because of the "snowboard effect," where people work in the summers and take winters off snowboarding while collecting UI benefits. (Source: Rep. Cary Condotta, R-East Wenatchee, April 1 House floor debate)
REDUX: The suggestion that many people are gaming the UI system -- using it every year in months they choose not to work -- is an oft-repeated theme, and unfortunately for those who repeat it, is not true.
The Department of Employment Security studied this very issue to determine its veracity. Valid claimants were tracked over a six-year period, 1996 through 2001, to study the rate of repeat claimants. The study found that two out of three claimants who received UI during that period did so only once. Fully 86.6% of claimants had just one or two successful claims during the six-year period. Only 1.4% managed to make successful claims in six straight years.
Whether steps should be taken to discourage or prohibit this tiny minority from such repeat claims is exactly the kind of issue the task force established by EHB 2255 will consider. But clearly, it is not a widespread problem that justifies cutting benefits for construction, agricultural and other cyclical workers by hundreds of dollars per week.
TALKING POINT: The 1,200 Boeing 787 assembly jobs Washington won in 2003 could be lost if the UI "reforms" are undone. (Source: Association of Washington Business, April 5 press release)
REDUX: Boeing supports EHB 2255, which doesn't come close to "undoing" 2003's changes (see above).
THE BOTTOM LINE: EHB 2255 is a very modest proposal. It does not deserve to be characterized in the way it has been. If state senators believe it is a mistake and choose to vote "no," they should avoid wild mischaracterizations like those listed above when defending their vote.
That is, unless they are deliberately distorting the issue with revisionist history and knowingly false rhetoric. In which case, all that stuff about giving lawmakers the benefit of the doubt will not apply in November 2006.
Restore democracy to union political action
Speaking of revisionist history, let's take the Wayback Machine to November 1992. That was when Washington voters approved Initiative 134, which enacted sweeping campaign finance reforms. Those of us who were around back then remember that these changes championed by then-state Sen. Linda Smith were principally marketed around new contribution limits to candidates and parties.
Well, certain extreme right-wing think tanks (that spend most their time "thinking" of new ways to weaken unions) would now have us believe that the I-134 "voter mandate" was specifically about reining in union political influence.
Here's the truth. Among the dozens of clauses in I-134 was one designed to restrict union contributions, although it also applied to businesses. Its language was so vague and poorly written that, as is sometimes the case, the initiative required an agency rulemaking process to be implemented.
So in 1993, all sides of the argument testified in public hearings, and eventually, the Public Disclosure Commission approved what was known as the "affiliation rule." That rule states that local affiliates of statewide and international unions may contribute to candidates as separate entities with separate contribution limits, as long as their international, state or district council stays out of the race. In other words, the rule acknowledges that different union locals are autonomous -- with members and political committees deciding on their own which candidates to support and how much to give them -- and therefore they shouldn't have to share a limit.
That rule was in place from 1994 to 2004. But last year, in a case originated by our hard-thinkin' friends at the aforementioned right-wing foundation, the Supreme Court invalidated that rule, saying that the PDC had exceeded its authority by enacting it. Without the rule, the PDC now says it must impose the strictest possible interpretation of I-134, which is that every local from the same union must share a single contribution limit.
Ironically, the implicit assumption is that unions are top-down undemocratic organizations where political endorsements are controlled by one council, or even one individual. Meanwhile, business interests -- which spend from 12 to 15 times more on politics than labor unions every election cycle -- have no democratic process for shareholders or governing boards to determine how their political money is spent.
ESSB 5034, as amended in House committee, would fine-tune the decade-old "affiliation rule." It will allow union locals to keep an independent voice on political issues, one determined by democratic votes of the members and not by officials at a higher union body.
We urge state legislators to respect the rulemaking process conducted right after I-134 was passed by supporting ESSB 5034. Please leave a message for your State Representatives at 1-800-562-6000; urge them to support ESSB 5034. A vote is expected next week.
Child care wage ladder on its way to Gregoire
The Senate approved HB 1636 Thursday night on a 27-22 vote. Sponsored by Rep. Eric Pettigrew (D-Seattle), this bill, which already passed the House 59-34, establishes a career and wage ladder in state-licensed child care centers. This is an important victory not just for child care workers, but for early childhood education. Although subsidies to pay for child care slots have increased, it has not resulted in higher wages for child care workers, almost all of whom still make less than $10 an hour. Pilot programs have demonstrated that career and wage ladders are cost effective at decreasing turnover and improving morale.
Because of a minor amendment, the bill faces reconciliation between the two houses' versions before it is sent to Gov. Christine Gregoire for signature.
PREVIOUS EDITIONS of the 2005 WSLC Legislative Update:
April 1 -- U.I. compromise reached (plus a summary of election bills followed by labor)
March 25 -- Will family values take a back seat? (Gregoire's budget, UI, Social Security)
March 18 -- The price of legislative inaction (HCRA, UI, Retro, elections, family leave)
March 11 -- Big issues in play as deadline looms (UI, retro, Family Leave Insurance)
Feb. 23 -- Clock's ticking on the HCRA (apprenticeship, simple-majority school levies)
Feb. 11 -- What are they so afraid of? (offshoring, tax breaks, health care & tip credit... oh, my)
Feb. 4 -- Health care: A shared responsibility (plus mental health parity, apprenticeship)
Jan. 28 -- Tax system "unconscionable" (plus tax accountability and disclosure; and more)
Jan. 21 -- Apprenticeship: It's a win-win (plus health care; "Dead Peasant" bill; and more)
Jan. 14 -- Wasteful Retro needs reform (plus state employee contract; more tax breaks)
Copyright © 2005 Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO