By: Sen. Adam Kline
I’ve received almost 275 e-mails, phone calls, and letters in the past few days requesting that we bring the Worker Privacy Act (WPA) to a vote. The WPA (SB 5446 and HB 1528) would allow workers in our state to choose whether or not to participate in employer communication – such as mandatory meetings -- on issues of individual conscience, including politics, religion, charitable meetings, and unionization. We’re in the midst of a major controversy over the bill, and it looks like it won’t move forward this year.
I'm a co-sponsor of the Senate version of the WPA, and wholeheartedly support it. SB 5446 had a hearing before the Labor, Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee, of which I'm a member. We passed the bill out of committee and sent it to the Rules Committee. The House committee also sent the legislation to their Rules Committee.
On March 11, the Governor and Senate and House leadership announced on that the Legislature would not take action on SB 5446 or HB 1528 because some lawmakers were cc-ed on an e-mail sent to labor advocates by the Washington State Labor Council (WSLC) indicating that unions might discontinue donating to Democratic campaigns if the bill failed to become law. The e-mail stated that "Union leaders would send a message to the State Democratic Party and to the Truman and Roosevelt funds from the House and Senate that 'not another dime from labor' until the Governor signs the Worker Privacy Act." (The Truman and Roosevelt funds are dedicated to furthering the goals of the state Senate and House Democratic caucuses, including support for candidates in campaigns.)
It is clear to me that the e-mail was about strategy and was not meant as a direct threat to legislators that campaign funds would be withheld unless action was taken on the bill. The legislators who received copies of this e-mail were already strong supporters of the bill, so it seems very unlikely that the e-mail was intended as a threat to them.
Still, because they were concerned that the e-mail could be construed as being an illegal threat or bribe, one or more of the legislators who were cc’ed on the e-mail forwarded it to Senate leadership, who shared it with House leadership and the Governor’s office. The matter was turned over to the Washington State Patrol for investigation. The WSLC issued an apology for its mistake of cc'ing the e-mail to any legislators.
The Senate Democratic leadership stated that their decision to kill the bill was "based on a deep desire by Senate leadership to protect the integrity of the legislative process against even the appearance of impropriety." Unfortunately, this all occurred in the few days before the cut-off date by which bills had to pass out of their house of origin.
Days later, on March 17th, the Washington State Patrol announced that it had closed its investigation because the e-mail did not constitute criminal conduct. They said all materials reviewed by WSP detectives would be forwarded to the Public Disclosure Commission. The Governor and House and Senate Democratic leadership continue to maintain that the legislation won't move forward this year. The Senate Democrats recently issued this statement: "the Legislature is an institution that makes public policy based on the merits of each individual proposal brought before us. Our job as lawmakers is to hear these proposals, evaluate the competing interests involved, balance them where possible, identify and mitigate any negative or unintended consequences, and, ultimately, bring them forward when they align with our overall policy objectives as representatives of our individual districts and members of our caucus. But we have to draw the line between this normal process and any attempt by any stakeholder to influence us on a given proposal by threatening to give or withhold contributions to our campaigns as political candidates.”
I think Senate and House leadership did the right thing at the outset, by suspending consideration of the bill. In these cases, it is good to err on the side preserving legislative propriety. But now that the State Patrol has closed its investigation, I think we should bring this bill to a vote.
Unfortunately, March 12 was the cut-off for bills to be passed out of their house of origin. Even if the WPA had been brought up before cut-off, it would have been a contentious floor debate and a difficult vote. Now that cut-off has passed, bringing it to a vote would entail a difficult parliamentary maneuver and an even more contentious floor debate during a time when we're focusing on dealing with a horrifying $9 million revenue deficit. Senate and House leadership have clearly stated that they don’t want to move forward with the bill. On Monday, the Associated Press reported that Governor Gregoire said she probably would have vetoed the WPA (or portions of it) because of potential negative effects on Boeing. In the past, the Governor has come out in support of this legislation.
I'll continue to work with my fellow labor advocates to get this bill passed as soon as possible, but we might be forced to wait until next year.
The majority of correspondence I've received about the Worker Privacy Act from constituents has supported the bill, but I've also received a fair amount of calls and letters opposing it. Many of the folks opposing the bill seem to be misinformed. Corporate interests are spreading the rumor that this bill will act as a gag order for any employer who wants to talk about religion, politics, charitable giving, unionization or other matters of personal conscience in the work place. They say that this law would violate their constitutional right to free speech.
Anyone who actually reads the bill knows this isn't true. Currently, our laws allow employers to force workers to participate in communications, including mandatory meetings, where the employer can press their own views on religion, politics, unions, and similar matters. Workers can be, and are, fired or discipline for refusing to participate in such meetings. For example, it's very common for employers to hold mandatory meetings and other gatherings at which they attempt to discourage unionization, often through covert or overt intimidation tactics used against employees, managers and supervisors. Under current law, employers can also hold mandatory meetings in which they make it clear that certain ways of voting are preferred. For example, during the last election cycle, corporations like Wal-Mart were criticized for holding mandatory meetings to "warn" employees of dire consequences if they voted for Barack Obama. Employers are also allowed to hold mandatory meetings at which they forcefully encourage their employees to contribute to certain charities, or to take part in religious activities.
If the WPA passed, employers can continue to use the workplace as a forum for discussions on their views on unions, religion, politics, and charitable matters. They just can't force workers to listen to these views. For example, employers will still be able to open a meeting with a prayer. Employees must be given the option to not participate in these meetings or conversations, without any threat to their employment status. Workers who report or challenge a mandatory communication regarding unions, religion, politics or charitable matters will be protected from retaliatory discharge or discipline, and workers will have a civil court remedy for violations.
Our socio-economic system gives employers a tremendous amount of power over their employees, especially during difficult economic times like our current recession. I strongly believe that we need to protect workers from the threat of being fired or otherwise disciplined for not engaging in compulsory discussions regarding politics, religion, unions and charitable matters. These are private matters of individual conscience, and the privacy of workers must be protected.