If you want
to get this
newsletter
via email...

Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
a weekly report on the 2003 session  (Previous editions)

MONDAY, MAY 12  (download and print a PDF version)
A time for unapologetic Democrats

A recent Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial suggested House Speaker Frank Chopp should be replaced. The piece got enough attention that it was reproduced in other newspapers, and at least one other paper ran a subsequent story speculating that a local legislator may be in line to replace Chopp as Speaker.

Why does the P-I say Chopp should be replaced?  Among other things, for "fawning to vested political interests," and more explicitly, "his dogged allegiance to labor groups."  The incriminating evidence: he is fighting to fund the home-care workers’ contract, and to give a tiny 2% pay increase to state employees and teachers to help offset dramatic increases in out-of-pocket health care costs.

Where do we begin?

First of all, Chopp's attempt to throw a tiny budget bone to the employees of state government hardly constitutes dogged allegiance to unions.  Moreover, Frank Chopp’s advocacy for better wages and working conditions for home-care workers not only predates their decision to organize a union, it predates Chopp’s experience as a state legislator.  He has been fighting on behalf of home-care workers since his days as Executive Director of the Fremont Public Association, a nonprofit human services organization in Seattle.

But now that the home-care workers have organized a union, are we to believe that Chopp’s advocacy is "fawning to vested political interests"?

As for "dogged allegiance to labor unions," it would be more accurate to say organized labor is getting dogged.  Take a look at the WSLC’s pre-session agenda and that of, say, the Association of Washington Business.  In the inevitable post-session "winners vs. losers" media analyses, ask yourself at this point who do you think is going to be in which column?

The point here is not just that Frank Chopp deserves more respect from media pundits and those in his caucus so quick to take internal disputes public.  The larger point is: Why should Democrats apologize for being Democrats?!

Chopp deserves to be commended for his efforts to serve his key constituencies. That's what he's supposed to do. It's not a question of "fawning to vested political interests," it's standing up for what you believe in.

In the past, Democrats have fought for things like fair wages, better schools, improved and expanded health care, safe workplaces and protecting the state's environment.  Each of those goals has an organized lobby that supports it, and those groups often support Democrats politically because they are the strongest advocates for the cause.

The same is true for Republicans.  They fight for things that benefit their corporate constituencies.  Only in their case, the political connection is even more clearly traced.  Corporate election contributions and lobbying "investments" translate into bottom-line enhancing "returns"—tax breaks, privatized new markets and cost-cutting deregulation.

So when was the last time you heard a Republican apologize for advocating for business interests?  When was the last time a newspaper editorial board took a Republican leader to task for fawning to vested business interests?

They haven't and they won't.  Whether we like it or not, that double-standard is here to stay.  It doesn't matter that corporate interests get a more clearly defined return on their political investments, than do Democratic constituencies.  (What's the return on cheaper prescription drugs, cleaner air, better wages and safer workplaces for union members, and non-members, alike?)

Critics and cynics will always say Democratic advocacy for public employees, minimum wages, environmental protections and the like are a mere payoff to political interests.

So what?

No Democrat should feel compelled to apologize for supporting what unions, environmental groups and social service advocates also support.  Democrats need to stand up straight and fight the good fight. And when they stand accused of (gasp) supporting the unions, they should answer, "damn right I do."

House reportedly gives up on pay raises

The special session began today as a handful of legislators did what Governor Locke ordered—convene a special session May 12—and then promptly recessed to continue budget negotiations.  They say they will continue to perform this "rolling recess" ceremony every few days until they reconvene in earnest with a pre-negotiated agreement.

If you believe what you read in the paper—and the words of the House Democrats' leading budget negotiator Helen Sommers (D-Seattle)—that agreement will not offer any COLA for teachers and state employees.  If true, those that manage to keep their jobs will take a significant cut in compensation with higher out-of-pocket health care costs.

As Republican Senators and our Democratic governor are fond of saying, tough times call for sacrifice, right?  But just because we eliminate their jobs, freeze their wages and cut their benefits, doesn't mean we don't value them.

But, at risk of writing like a broken record, what about business tax breaks?  If a legislator suggests maybe we shouldn't reauthorize millions of dollars in special tax breaks expiring during a revenue crisis, they are accused of ignoring the value of businesses, killing jobs and generally being the enemy of all employers, whether they get tax breaks or not.

Again the double-standard.  Public schools and universities are good things, but times are tough and they must be cut.  Health care for the working poor is a good thing, but it must be cut.  Tax credits for the biotech industry may very well be a good thing, too—we don’t know for sure because lawmakers refuse to do performance audits on tax breaks.  But don't you dare consider cutting them.  Why?  Because doing so would ignore the value and importance of Washington state's biotech industry.

Spreading the pain means spreading the pain.  Business "suffering" is not of more importance than the suffering of families with the apparent misfortune of having breadwinners who work to provide in-home or public health care.

Conservative legislators are fond of saying "public employees are lucky to even have a job," leaving out the implied follow-through "...however bad that job sucks."  It's time for lawmakers to acknowledge we are all lucky to have public employees who've chosen to make economic sacrifices for themselves and their families in order to protect the least fortunate among us.  As we continue to make those sacrifices more and more significant, our luck may soon run out.

Workers' compensation update

An effort continues to make significant changes in the state's industrial insurance system.  Labor is negotiating in good faith to address some employer concerns, but the hyperbole on this issue needs to be checked.

Workers' compensation is an insurance program, not a business tax.  Employers pay premiums, but in return they get not only insurance against claims for their workers' injuries, they also get immunity from lawsuits for damages resulting from workplace injury and illness.

Yes, the insurance premiums just went up.  The roughly 70 percent of Washington businesses that participate in the State Fund got an average 28 percent increase this year.  It was the first rate increase in eight years and will generate some $265 million to help keep the system solvent.

Corporate lobbyists would have us believe this rate increase was caused by state mismanagement and court decisions that have increased injured worker benefits.  This simplistic view intentionally ignores a myriad of factors—including skyrocketing medical costs—in order to fuel corporate lobbyists' perennial efforts to cut benefits.

The truth is, this year's rate increase happened because the state was charging artificially low premiums during the 1990s stock market boom.  Investment returns over the past eight years have allowed the state to save employers some $1.4 billion in rate reductions and deferred rates.  And that doesn't even include the $400 million employers received in premium refunds in 1999 and 2000.

As for fund mismanagement, performance audits have consistently rated Washington's as a model workers' compensation system, delivering among the highest benefits (a good thing) at among the lowest costs.  The 2002 state-by-state comparison by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, lists Washington as in the top quarter of states in benefits provided, and having the 7th lowest rates.  That doesn't take into account the latest premium increase, but that ranking won't change much because all states—with and without privatized systems, by the way—have been forced to make significant premium increases this year.

If our fund has been mismanaged, it has been to the extent that the state failed to charge break-even rates during the stock market boom and irresponsibly refunded premiums in 1999 and 2000.  Now the contingency reserve has depleted to the point that a rare, dramatic premium hike was necessary.

As for court decisions, one of the benefits under attack right now is hearing loss benefits.  It should be noted that a recent Supreme Court decision, the Heidy v. Boeing case in 2002, has already had the impact of sharply reducing permanent partial disability awards for hearing loss as a result of occupational exposure.  In other words, these court decisions don't always enhance benefits.

All this being said, organized labor is willing to work with the employer community to identify ways the system can be made more efficient.  The goal is to mitigate or avoid future premium increases without ignoring the state's legal mandate to provide "sure and certain relief for workers, injured in their work, and their families and dependents."

Next update: Monday, May 19

Expect our next Update to include the latest on efforts to pass real prescription drug reform, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation negotiations, and any budget developments that occur this week.

---

PREVIOUS EDITIONS of the WSLC Legislative Update:

April 25 -- Fast and furious budget action; and "the Boeing agenda"
April 18 -- Finally, some balance in the House; plus more re: apprenticeship, charter schools
April 11 -- NO MORE TAX EXEMPTIONS! 
April 4 -- Senate OKs class-warfare budget; plus, AWB: Creating jobs for the good of humanity
March 28 -- All-cuts budget alarms voters; plus transportation proposals and election bills
March 21 -- Paying a price for neglect (re" Home care workers' contract; plus a bill roundup)
March 14 -- Job-Killing Bulls--- (re: Olympia rhetoric that pro-workers bills are all "job killers")
March 7 -- What a Difference a House Makes
Feb. 21 -- Workplace safety in jeopardy (re: BIAW ergo initiative, blocking WISHA inspections)
Feb. 14 -- MORE business tax breaks?!  (re: digging a deeper budget hole with no accountability)
Feb. 7 -- Commerce and ANTI-Labor? (re: workers' comp, minimum wage and transportation)
Feb. 3 -- Now is the time... to pay less? (re: workers' comp and minimum wage)
Jan. 24 -- Drug bill off to a strong start; competagogues go after ergonomics rule again
Jan. 17 -- It's the Economy, Stupid!  (re: "competagogues" and Washington's business environment)
Jan. 10 -- A Question of Priorities  (re: explosion of corporate influence on government)

Copyright © 2003  Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO