News
From your President
Hello All-
Recently the Supreme Court made a decision which effects all labor unions. I'm not going to summarize the decision in this email, I have attached a document which our attorney has prepared using her expertise in labor law that summarizes the ruling and it's effect on unions. There is also a portion that she explains the benefit of union membership in which she worked with union leadership to draft. I strongly urge you to read the document, it's only a couple pages and I think you will find it informative.
You may have recently received a mailer from the "Freedom Foundation". There is information in there about that organization as well as more background on the lobbying that has been done by this group and others against labor unions nationwide.
I'll try to be brief in relaying to you the importance of us being under a collective bargaining agreement and why it's in all of our best interest to stay a member of the union.
First, we started out this new union by lowering everyone's dues. This has been helpful for all of us, and we have been able to stay solvent with the revenue we are currently bringing in. We also have an experienced labor law attorney on retainer which has been crucial in the function of our organization. She is indispensable in personnel matters, collective bargaining and much more.
We are currently in negotiations with the state and have done the groundwork to make a strong case for salary increases for all of us. We are hopeful we will be successful in achieving this but we obviously cannot guarantee it will happen. We are working hard though and have a great negotiating team.
This ruling stated that people cannot be required to pay union dues but must still be represented in collective bargaining.
I want to be very frank in letting you know that if too many members opt out of paying dues we run a strong risk of not bringing in sufficient revenue to operate and continue functioning as a union. The implications of this are enormous. I'll explain briefly why:
If we don't have sufficient revenue to operate, we would have to decertify, which would then make us non-represented classified state employees. We would then fall under the civil service rules (CSR) (WAC 357). This means we would not have a collective bargaining agreement and all of the things that are in our contract but not in the civil service rules would go away.
This includes things like: loss of personal leave day, loss of bid rights, loss of hardship transfer, loss of assignment pays, and anything else in the contract not covered by the CSR. This means as well that the state could contract out our work and we would have no recourse to stop it (currently, all changes like this have to be bargained). Also, policy changes could be implemented and we cannot bargain it (currently all policy changes are reviewed by the union and if we do not concur we can bargain for the changes made). All bargaining power we have now is lost. We could no longer negotiate salary increases. All raises would be cost of living, when and if the legislature decides to give them (keep in mind, we didn't get a COLA for 8 years). Also, terminations and other disciplinary actions cannot be grieved. Instead, the employee is on their own to take it to the state appeals board. Bottom line, we would be at the mercy of management and would have little to no recourse.
I encourage you to take a look for yourself at the civil service rules and compare them to the current contract, here is the website
https://ofm.wa.gov/state-human-resources/civil-service-rules/civil-service-rules-wac-357
the date and time). As always, please share this information with those whose email I don't have. Also, please contact myself or any of our regional representatives or board members with any questions you might have.
Thanks for your time.
Mike
Janus decision basics
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 27, 2018 in Janus v. AFSCME that will undoubtedly have some implications for our association going forward. We believe that our association, as a union which is employee-driven and employee-run, is strong and in the best interests of our members and the employer.
As you may know, the Janus case was a 1st Amendment issue where Janus did not agree with the way his union bargained wages with the State of Indiana, and, claimed the contract negotiations violated his 1st Amendment rights. Janus stated he did not support his union bargaining for higher wages for him at a time when Illinois was having budgetary issues (ironically, he never turned back a wage increase bargained on his behalf), and that the union’s doing so violated his 1st Amendment rights. The Court agreed that a public employee does not need to fund an organization that abridges his Constitutional rights in this manner.
In short, the ruling will make it voluntary to pay union dues and be a part of the association. The association will bargain one collective bargaining agreement for its members and non-members, but the representation stops there.
According to the Court, non-dues-paying employees need not be represented when the employee has disputes with the employer such as disciplinary matters; scheduling or pay issues; classification issues; or other matters of labor concern. The Court went further to state that a union has the right to not grieve or process a grievance for a non-dues paying member, so long as non-payer is informed of this decision. The Court has stated that if the association agrees to grieve a matter for the non-payer, they can charge that person the costs of accessing and using the grievance process. These costs would include the cost of the association attorney; release time for the association representatives and the costs for arbitration if it is decided to go that route.
I got a mailer from the Freedom Foundation…..
Who is the Freedom Foundation?
The Freedom Foundation is a non-profit organization that has as its mission the goal to “advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.” What it really appears to be is a foundation funded by billionaires in order to affect labor policies, climate change policies, school funding, anti-immigration and the like. The Freedom Foundation is not an advocate for public sector employees, their wages or working conditions.
While the IRS is not required to provide a list of the donors, it has been reported by SourceWatch.org that the following are donors and/or associated with the Freedom Foundation:
American Legislative Exchange Council - this is an organization which works with sympathetic legislators in order to develop legislation that is then brought forward on a state and federal basis to reduce employee pensions; increase employee contributions to health care and pension, and the privatization of public sector work.
Opt Out/Freedom Foundation, according to Northwest Accountability Project, “ultimate goal is to privatize public services and eliminate public sector jobs. They believe if they can reduce public sector union membership, they will reduce a powerful voice for public services and cut corporate taxes.” This group was part of the coalition that sponsored legislation to slash Oregon PERS benefits by 40%!
Other sponsors include: Donors Trust (an organization to shelter millionaires monies in order to fight public unions, public education and oppose climate change science); State Policy Network (funding “think tanks” aimed at reducing government; Searle Freedom Trust (the trust’s mission statement is to “foster research and education on public policy issues that affect individual freedom and economic liberty); Walton Family (Walmart – one of the biggest anti-union private employers); and others whose purpose is to privatize education.
In addition, they are behind measures to reduce Medicare and Medicaid; privatize public services; cut public employee pensions and make public employees pay for their health care. This was born out in Wisconsin where the average employee, after the right to work legislation passed now pays 18% more towards their benefits and has seen a reduction in wages as well.
The Freedom Foundation is not interested in your well-being. A staffer was quoted in the Bend Oregon Bulletin claiming that taxpayers are responsible for footing the bill for your “handsome wages and lavish benefits.”
This organization has been successful in privatizing prisons, outsourcing highway services, and inspections.
How did they even get my address?
They issued a public information request that included much more than your address (things such as birthdates and other private information). The unions were successful in narrowing the information released to your addresses.
Benefits of Membership
• Representation by other DFW employees who understand the unique nature of DFW.
• We are responsive to our members needs in a timely manner.
• Support in the workplace when issues arise (payroll issues; leave issues; facilitation with issues within work group; discipline investigation, support & representation).
• Reallocation assistance and representation in appeals.
• Access to a lawyer who has represented our members and employees for 24 years.
• Minimal dues.
• Ability to vote on contract changes and provide direction in future contract provisions.
• Representation in layoffs and minimizing the impacts thereof.
• Advocation for salary increases and health benefits in bargaining and with the legislature.
• Monitoring and bargaining policy changes with the Agency (preventing those changes that impair your ability to perform your work or impair your benefits).
• Legislative and Commission communication regarding issues that directly impact your jobs.
Benefits of Non-Membership
• You get what we bargain for and win at collective barganing, that’s it. No other Representation.
Do not let billionaires convince you that leaving the union is in your best interests….ask yourself, why do they care?