Friends, I share Gary M's concerns about HB 3145. The state of Washington should not be unionizing parents, be they foster parents or otherwise. We do not need union rules determining how parents can relate to their children - but it goes farther than that. The idea that anyone who receives benefits or payments from the state requires representation by a labor union has got to stop! Once a union "contract" is injected into the mix, the will of the legislature is overridden by "impairment of contract" provisions in the Constitution. If unions continue to get in the middle of every relationship between the government and the people, then the legislature will, before you know it, be powerless to set any kind of policy. That is not the way our government should be run.

Please - call or write your senators. Tell them to vote NO on HB 3145. And, please, forward Gary's op-ed to all your friends and contacts around the state, and ask them to do the same.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/352627_foster26.html

Unionizing foster parents bad idea
By GARY MALKASIAN
GUEST COLUMNIST

House Bill 3145, now in the Senate, takes foster care in a dangerous direction. Innocuously titled "Implementing a tiered classification system for foster parent licensing," it was drafted by Foster Parents Association of Washington (FPAWS, division WFSE/AFL-CIO) as the first step toward unionizing foster parents.

HB3145 establishes collective bargaining for foster parents, classifies them as state employees and authorizes the collection of union dues from payments to foster parents. This is going too far.

HB3145 was written specifically for foster parents of high-needs children to establish a beachhead. Once a precedent is set, it will be easy to expand the scope because virtually all children in foster care are special needs.

This has many negative consequences. Because foster parenting follows a volunteer model, payment to foster parents is tax-free support for the child. If we're professional state employees, it'll be taxable. Foster parents will be forced to join the union and pay dues, dues that fund union PAC political causes they might not support.

Foster parents don't get much money in the first place. Reimbursement rates start at $398.68 monthly. Anyone with children knows that doesn't go far. Taxes and dues will hurt families or require an increase just to maintain the same support for the child. According to WFSE's own Web site, unionization is expensive:

"Negotiating the contract was very expensive for the union. ... The costs of preparation, research and actual bargaining teams' expenses ... are formidable."
While not parties in court, foster parents are sometimes called "pseudo-parties" because we have the right to be heard. In extreme cases, some have intervened as psychological or de facto parents.

If this bill becomes law, foster parents will be viewed not as parents but "hired help." The Washington Supreme Court decided recently de facto parents must have taken on all parental responsibilities without compensation, to exclude hired nannies. If we're paid professionals we'll be "compensated," unable to claim this status. While wining a motion to intervene is very difficult, this may make it impossible.

Labor laws written to protect unionization weren't written with foster care in mind. Court challenges are inevitable.

Will every foster parent be forced to join? The answer from the Web site, again, is yes:

"WFSE and other unions representing state employees have been working to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions for years, powered by dues-paying members. We have all benefited from this work. ... Now that we have collective bargaining rights it is important that union work be supported. ... It would not be fair to expect the few to continue to support the many. The burden ... should be shared by all who benefit."

So even if a foster parent didn't ask for or want representation, to their way of thinking, everyone will benefit so everyone should pay, even if an individual opposed unionization. That's how unions work.

FPAWS doesn't speak for every foster parent. Do foster parents want a union? Some of their own members tell me they don't. Before undertaking a monumental step, shouldn't lawmakers consult with ordinary foster parents? Shouldn't it be our decision? Was there any survey or poll? Shouldn't that be done before rushing to pass laws we don't want?

Unlike the workplace, where workers must join or lose jobs, foster parents don't need the state. They need us. If forced to join, I predict foster parents already fed up with the system will depart in droves. If even 20 percent leave already thin ranks, it will be a foster care disaster.

I've tremendous respect for FPAWS co-presidents Steve and Danielle Baxter, and we're allies on many issues. My Web site, SiritaLaw.com, links to theirs. I supported tiered licensing with greater training. But the amendment sets dangerous precedents and I have to oppose it. The Senate Human Services Committee public hearing is at 8 a.m. Thursday.

The House vote split by party, and that's very disheartening. Normally the children's services committees are wonderfully nonpartisan. The issues cut across party lines because children are at risk. They're hurt, vulnerable and innocent. They get us working together because what happened to them is unfair. This cuts us deep, where we're no longer Democrats or Republicans, just people who love our children.

Foster children do something nothing short of miraculous -- they get Democrats willing to act tough and Republicans willing to spend money. That's two miracles right there. Unionization politicizes it. Suddenly we're Democrats fighting with Republicans again, because it takes our focus off the child and puts it on ourselves. And that in a nutshell is my problem with HB3145.

Gary Malkasian is a member of the Legislative Child Safety "Sirita" Task Force, which led to passage of Sirita's Law, a foster care reform act. His former foster daughter, Sirita Sotelo, was killed shortly before her fifth birthday after being removed from his care.