December 07, 2004
Unions counting every vote ... for Gregoire

Latest release from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation:

OLYMPIA, WA -- Necessity is motivating the Washington Education Association (WEA) and other unions to discard any facade of merely pursuing the interests of workers.

Yesterday, the WEA sent out an urgent memo asking its members to "Please sign up today to serve as a Democratic Party observer for this count. To participate, please e-mail the party at count@wa-democrats.org." The training sessions to become an observer are held at six union halls around the state.

"Even though only slightly more than a third of the teachers identify themselves as Democrats, unions are jumping in to provide resources, staffing and volunteers for this civic service just to the Democrats," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "This further proves that the union does not make decisions on political expenditures by member consensus as it claims."

The WEA is not alone; the Washington State Labor Council is also soliciting contributions and encouraging local unions to donate paid staff to the Democratic Party's efforts to find more votes for Christine Gregoire.

"The WEA and other unions have made no attempt to seek worker approval for spending mandatory collective bargaining dues on a purely partisan recount effort," said Williams. "These dues are most often required because they are supposed to be used for bargaining and grievances, but union officials are once again diverting them to electioneering."

###

Posted by Marsha Michaelis at December 07, 2004 02:59 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Thank you, Marsha.

Posted by: South County on December 7, 2004 03:32 PM
2. And the Republican efforts to gather and train observers?

More importantly, are the Democrats doing anything differently than if the shoes were on the Republican's feet? I don't think so.

Posted by: Al Hedstrom on December 7, 2004 03:55 PM
3. Well, we certainly wouldn't be using ostensibly nonpartisan unions. Which is, you know, what this is about.

Posted by: Timothy on December 7, 2004 03:58 PM
4. Al H. -- I don't think the Republicans are using anybody's mandatory paycheck deductions in order to pay for the recount.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 7, 2004 04:01 PM
5. All unions allow you to request any money back in the form of cash back to your wallet for any political activity you don't agree with. So if a union spends 5% of their budget on a political advertisement that you don't agree with, you can request 5% of your dues that would have gone to the political campaign budget back as a refund. I did that recently when my local endorsed a candidate that I couldn't stand, and generated campaign material for him, and got a check for $3.14.

Posted by: DustinJames on December 7, 2004 04:11 PM
6. Forgot to add that it's a Federal Law that allows you to do that...

Posted by: DustinJames on December 7, 2004 04:12 PM
7. I know that what I'm about to say is like spitting into a hurricane, but what the hell, it's all good fun. You all seem shocked that politics breaks out over a contested election. I'll bet you were all equally shocked when the US Chamber poured all that money into anti-Deborah Senn ads. I don't suppose the BIAW is providing any support to the R side of the recount. I know this is an R political blog and most of the people here are the true believers, but you really need to get a bit of a grip. Both sides are using all their resources to win the race. What's wrong with that? If Rossi were slightly behind, I would be quite disappointed in the Rs if they didn't use every resource they had to get a more favorable count. I just don't get the personal and ad hominem attacks on the other side.

Posted by: Steve on December 7, 2004 04:26 PM
8. Steve: 'Fraid you're missing the point. BIAW gets money from voluntary members and donors. The Republican Party gets money from voluntary members and donors. The labor unions get money by using their influence to pass laws that force workers to hand over part of their paycheck as a condition of employment.

THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. See it?

Dustin: You're right that workers can request a refund for dues that aren't spent on workplace representation. But it's a far cry from a full refund. Our audits of more than 60,000 internal teacher union documents show that roughly 80% of the union's expenditures at the state level are not related to workplace representation. But the union only admits to 27%, so that's what teachers get.

Posted by: Marsha Richards on December 7, 2004 05:20 PM
9. G'd evening, Marsha. Wasn't there some litigation on appeal last year to WA Supreme Court concerning faulty accounting of the nature you say. Where can I read about it? And what do the rank and file of the union think about it?

Posted by: John Kutscher on December 7, 2004 05:39 PM
10. It's not a law, it's a court decision. The decision being referred to is Beck. Unfortunately, members have to accept what the union bosses say is "political" activity. If you go into a business today, you'll see all kinds of posters about rights, minimum wage, etc...but nothing about Beck rights. That's because the unions sue every time the Labor Dept attempts to post Beck rights.

It's a flag that a member is a troublemaker, and not one of the "guys."

If Rossi were slightly behind, I would be quite disappointed in the Rs if they didn't use every resource they had to get a more favorable count.

I'm guessing you vote RAT.

Posted by: South County on December 7, 2004 05:49 PM
11. John: Washington's Court of Appeals ruled last year that our state law prohibiting unions from spending non-member fees on politics was a violation of the First Amendment. In other words, protecting the individual free speech rights of teachers was a violation of the union's "collective speech rights."

Very bizarre and outrageous.

That case was appealed to the State Supreme Court (by our state attorney general's office) and oral arguments were heard in May this year. A ruling could be issued anytime between now and a year from now.

South County: It's my understanding the federal Department of Labor issued a new rule requiring the posting of Beck Rights -- and they did it the day after President Bush was reelected.

The DOL is also pursuing stricter expenditure reporting requirements for unions (and I believe the unions have sued to stop it -- surprise). That will, hopefully, make it harder for unions to hide political spending from members.

Posted by: Marsha Richards on December 7, 2004 06:14 PM
12. Marsha, it's my understanding they backed down.

Posted by: South County on December 7, 2004 06:27 PM
13. Steve-

"Both sides are using all their resources to win the race. What's wrong with that?"

Plenty. The concept of an election in civil society is that even a one-vote majority, counting by the rules in place BEFORE the balloting, decides the election.

If you think that using ALL resources until one side overcomes the other (particularly through a bitter round of lawsuits advocating new rules) is commendable, why not promote gladiatorial combats or pitched battles instead of mere elections? At least you could make bucks by charging admission, and buy yourself an elective office (if such things exist after all the resources are exhausted) like Maria Cantwell did.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 7, 2004 07:20 PM
14. Great work Marsha...as usual.
Let's see now;
1) Ms. Gregoire blows an appeal and costs Wa. taxpayers $18 million.
2) Gregoire falsely blames a staff member, who sues her. The taxpayers cough up another $800,000 and Gregoire claims victory.
3) Gregoire has a pitiful record of releasing required public documents timely, the worst being the Boeing give-away.
4) Now she uses the unions to do her dirty work.
5) AND WORST OF ALL!!!! GREGOIRE SUES TO "RE-RE-EVALUATE" BALLOTS PREVIOUSLY REJECTED.....IN AN EXACTLY 180 degree TURNAROUND FROM AN OPINION LETTER SHE ISSUED AS ATTY GENERAL 8 YEARS AGO.

Ms. Gregoire is a real piece of work!!!! The emporess has no clothes!!! And it ain't a pretty sight!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 7, 2004 09:02 PM
15. Steve -
"Both sides are using all their resources to win the race. What's wrong with that?"

Race? What race? THE RACE IS OVER, BLOCKHEAD!!

A more accurate statement would be

"The Democrats are using all their resources to win an election that they have already lost twice, while the Republicans are using all their resources to defend their two victories."

See the distinction, Steve-O-Reno?? IT ISN'T A RACE!! THE RACE IS OVER! ROSSI WON TWICE!!!

Sheesh. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by: Larry on December 7, 2004 09:25 PM
16. Isn't the democratic lawsuit based exactly on the same premise that the Bush 2000 lawsuit in Florida was based on?

Posted by: tom on December 7, 2004 10:01 PM
17. Larry...calling someone else a blockhead doesn't advance your case. Instead, it makes your argument less convincing...

Posted by: tom on December 7, 2004 10:03 PM
18. Ironically, all King County election workers are asked to join the Teamster's Union or eventually face expulsion under the closed shop rules. This has naturally angered many Republicans who have been appointed by the party during the hand recount, who oppose unions on principle, or otherwise object to their pro-Gregoire biases.

So if Rossi wins the final count, Gregoire (funded, in part, by unions) will have paid the salaries of 80 Republican workers in King County for two weeks, who, in turn, will have lost a few thousand dollars to the unions in the form of dues.

If Gregoire wins the final count, the state would pick up the tab, which would include (indirectly) a contribution to the unions in the form of dues paid during the hand recount.

Posted by: Anonymous on December 7, 2004 11:57 PM
19. Anonymous,

You've just detailed the truth that lies behind all the Union BS about being for the working man and all Democrat BS about being for the downtrodden. The unions are money-hungry, the Democrats are power-crazed, and they have made a marriage of convenience.

Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on December 8, 2004 06:22 AM
20. OK, here's a thought experiment: suppose that the Republican congress and president passed a law that added 10c a week to everybody's tax withholding, as a donation to the GOP. Just $5.20 a year. Anyone who objected to their money being taken for that purpose, could simply write in and ask for a refund. Let's make it sweeter, and suppose that those who objected would receive not just the $5.20 they had 'contributed' but $10.40, as a sort of apology for having been the victim of such high-handedness. But to find out that you're entitled to this refund, you have to do some minimal research, because nobody at your workplace tells you about it.

How many people do you think would bother writing in for their $10.40 refund check? And how many people, who would not otherwise consider sending money to the GOP, would simply shrug it off, and consider that it's just 10c a week, and not worth bothering about?

I bet if this were actually implemented, the GOP would make a killing.

Posted by: Zev Sero on December 8, 2004 08:02 AM
21. That kind of thing is already done by the political left, Zev...it's called WASHPIRG.

Posted by: South County on December 8, 2004 10:35 AM
22. I took another look at those memos and I noticed something funny...

I was able to recreate the exact look of those memos by typing the text into Microsoft Word, using the DEFAULT settings! I then sent them through the fax machine a couple of times and ... VOILA!

Posted by: Out4Blood on December 8, 2004 01:45 PM
23. Out4Blood: You're implying some kind of Rathergate here?

Posted by: Marsha Richards on December 8, 2004 04:21 PM
24. Gee, maybe since it is from 96 it was done on a PC in word, unlike a memo from 60 something? Big stretch there I know...

Posted by: Angry Voter on December 8, 2004 08:22 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?