May 10, 2007
What side is Mrs. Gregoire on?

Mrs. Gregoire is scheduled to take action tomorrow morning on HB 2079 the emergency-claused bill to let public employee unions use non-members' mandatory fees for political purposes without permission.

The drama is: will Mrs. Gregoire sign the bill as is, or will she veto in whole or in part? Is she on the side of the union bosses, or on the side of the voters, the public employees, and the First Amendment?

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 10, 2007 10:00 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Queen Gregoire is on her own side. At this point, the voters, public employees, and First Amendment do not butter her bread.

Posted by: katomar on May 10, 2007 10:01 AM
2. Union bosses.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 10, 2007 10:01 AM
3. Silly question. As katomar said she's on her own side, and her political survival depends on union support.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on May 10, 2007 10:16 AM
4. I don't understand how non-union members have mandatory union fees. Can some one explain that one? That sounds like child support for other people's kids.

Posted by: Mumau on May 10, 2007 10:16 AM
5. Emergency clause. Uh, Yesssssss. Of course.

More fodder for Dino.

Posted by: Michele on May 10, 2007 10:18 AM
6. I vote "Union Bosses".

What else are Democrats but shills for unions anyway?

Posted by: MJC on May 10, 2007 10:47 AM
7. Is this really a serious question? She is a union w hore. She'll spread wide and high whenever they snap their fingers.

Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2007 10:50 AM
8. Nice labeling, "Shop Fee's" It sounds so harmless. Like the WSP is upset with the state's "shop fee" for an oil change. Not the typical suspect union dealings that this bill is all about. I think Gov. Turkey Neck will look for the union label on this one.

Posted by: Dave E. WA on May 10, 2007 11:02 AM
9. Nice labeling, "Shop Fee's" It sounds so harmless. Like the WSP is upset with the state's "shop fee" for an oil change. Not the typical suspect union dealings that this bill is all about. I think Gov. Turkey Neck will look for the union label on this one.

Posted by: Dave E. WA on May 10, 2007 11:02 AM
10. Union Bosses.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 10, 2007 11:25 AM
11. Mumau: The many non-union employees, such as paid personal care providers for the disabled, must also have union dues deducted ostensibly for "contract negotiation" activities.

Posted by: katomar on May 10, 2007 11:30 AM
12. She still has to pay off for the "extra" votes in 2004.

Posted by: JCM on May 10, 2007 11:31 AM
13. UNION BOSSES. I guarrantee it. And you can take that to the bank... er... wait... she already has...

Posted by: Andrew on May 10, 2007 11:41 AM
14. Not that I want to take the side of "Queen Christine," but she did recently veto the emergency clause which the Legislature inserted in other legislation (something about adding light sensitivity to the list of disabilities for which you can get the special parking permit). When doing so, she issued a statement criticizing the Legislature's excessive use of such clauses on the grounds that it interferes with the right of initiative. It actually sounded like something Stefan would agree with.

Of course, having vetoed the clause in that legislation, she will look pretty darn hypocritical if she doesn't veto the emergency clause in this legislation also.

Posted by: Matt from Olympia on May 10, 2007 01:25 PM
15. What this state needs is a good dose of Taft-Hartley, ยง 14(b), which outlaws the "union shop" in any state that so desires. Now, the National Labor Relations Act doesn't apply to public sector workers (the state has it's own public employment labor relations act and board to enforce it), but 14(b) is a good start.

I predict...Roberts, C.J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, J.'s will vote to render this terribly fascistic law moot. On that day, there'll be whoopin' and hollerin' down at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, and Bob Williams will grin from ear to ear!

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on May 10, 2007 01:39 PM
16. Easy call . . . union bosses.

Posted by: G Jiggy on May 10, 2007 04:01 PM
17. Is she on the side of the union bosses, or on the side of the voters, the public employees, and the First Amendment?

That falls in to the category of NONSENSICAL RHETORICAL QUESTION, right?

The correct answer is DUH!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 10, 2007 04:57 PM
18. Well Matt, she probably just picked that wide ranging social issue of Light Sensitivity so that she can credibly put "veto" and "emergency clause" in the same sentence in the fancy ads she will run next year in a campaign for reelection.

It won't take much to convince the Left when they are so easily hypnotized with little more than Bright Lights.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2007 11:58 PM
19. Get real! The last time I checked, she is a Democrat; bought and paid for by union bosses, trial lawyers and George Soros.

Posted by: JC Bob on May 11, 2007 04:56 AM
20. She'll probably veto the emergency clause and use that as cover to sign off on the rest of the bill.

Considering that "shop fees" are supposed to be set at the legitimate cost of contract negotiations. It would be interesting to see a group of employees sue the union for overcharging. They must be overcharged if there's all this money left over to fund political contributions.

Posted by: TG on May 11, 2007 10:05 AM
21. Just can't wait till the U.S. Supreme Court gets hold of that one!

Posted by: doug on May 11, 2007 10:11 AM
22. She signed the bill and the emergency clause.

So, she is a hypocrite.

As if we didn't know that already.

Posted by: Matt from Olympia on May 11, 2007 05:57 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?