Did you know that State Employees are NOT required to have a union represent them.
That's Right.
State Law simply ALLOWS State Employees to have a union represent them.
No law says we MUST have one.
We can keep the current union, we get a new union, or we can remove the union altogether.
It's called a Decertification Election!
State Law was changed a few short years ago that now force State Employees to pay money to existing unions - but, again, no law requires us to have a union.
I could go on about how deviously this was done, but the question to us now is: Do employees working in agencies where unions are and have been entrenched for so many years, still want these unions?
Nobody knows, 'cuz nobody's asking!
So we're asking now!
Do We Want A Change?
These are our choices:
We can keep the existing unions, continue to pay the monies (even if we don't want to), and life goes on as is, with fear at our backs.
We can replace the existing unions, which means we would be taking a chance on landing a great union or one worse than what we have now.
OR
We can Remove the unions entirely, not pay any money to the unions (essentially, giving ourselves a raise), and live under the civil service rules - just like other non-unionized State employees have been doing for years.
It's OUR RIGHT! It's OUR CHOICE! AND It's the Law!
We need to get this choice to ALL employees. In order to get this choice to ALL employees, we need to follow the legal process to get that accomplished.
That legal process is called? A Decertification Election.
This is not a bad thing. It is simply the only legal avenue left to us to replace or remove an existing union. And this legal avenue has a deadline. By the end of March, all decertification cards must be signed, tallied and turned in with the showing of interest petition.
Then what happens...
If 30% of the employees in a bargaining unit, sign Decertification Cards, that bargaining unit gets a vote. Each bargining unit must have 30% showing of interest in order to get the vote for that bargaining unit. This vote is not presented by the union, but, rather, it is presented, managed, and counted by the Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC). You can go to PERC's web site and read all about how this process works.
When the vote is presented to your bargaining unit, VOTE!
The votes are then counted by PERC and whatever the Majority vote reveals is what we get.
So, there are two CRITICAL messages here.
1) SIGN and turn in Decertification cards. Tell your friends. Get them to sign and turn in a card. Have your friends, tell their friends. The more we have, the more chances we have of getting to vote.
2) When the VOTE is presented. VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! Don't rely on others to vote for you. If you don't vote, your will, Your Choice, Your Voice is not counted. So I can't stress enough...VOTE!
--------------------------
Get your Decertification Card by clicking the link below. Print it, fill it out, sign and mail it today! Encourage your coworkers to do the same
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t a plot…
September 6, 2006
I must confess that I haven’t paid much attention to what WFSE was up to this past summer. For one thing, I recruited, organized and led a Habitat for Humanity team to Sri Lanka where we helped build homes for five families. But also, paying attention to what WFSE is up to tends to raise my blood pressure because, as their political and financial power has blossomed they’ve flaunted both and revealed the depths of their arrogance and cynicism.
I was jarred out of my complacency by a breezy little article in the Tacoma News Tribune, noting that WFSE and the State of Washington had completed the charade they called “negotiations,” and the new contract was now ready to be put to a vote. But a vote only by dues-paying members of the union.
The WFSE web site to verifies that, in fact, the so-called “security clause” – allowing them to “request termination” of employees who resist their extortion – is again part of the new contract.
Although principles of democracy and of simple justice would require that all employees who are affected by the contract should be able to vote on it, that will no longer be the case in WFSE contracts. As Mike Reitz of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation confirmed, “In exchange for the ‘union security’ clause forcing people to pay, the union agreed to allow all affected bargaining unit employees to vote. This year they have no such obligation.”
In fact, that’s hardly even the tip of the iceberg. As some of our Free Conscience members discovered during last year’s legislative session, the chain of legislation that gave WFSE and the other public sector unions their strangle-hold on State employees began several years back. Up until they “pulled the string” last year, demanding that non-supervisory employees fork over money or lose their jobs, their game plan was disguised as seemingly unrelated bits of apparently routine legislation.
One key piece of legislation that Free Conscience members were successful in intercepting last year appeared so innocuous on the surface that the bill’s sponsor wasn’t even aware of what it said. In fact, it was only when members of Free Conscience began digging that it became clear that an elaborate – and clearly cynical – plan had been in effect all along.
It would be tempting to congratulate them on such a masterful accomplishment – a plan intricately designed, patiently carried out. However, conversations with people in other states where public employees are also being shaken down revealed that the content and timing of the legislation giving power to the unions has been essentially identical to that which went on in Washington.
In other words, the leaders of WFSE aren’t so much clever masterminds as they are diligent and obedient functionaries for the national organizations.
All of this should serve as a wake-up call for any State employees who have left a shred of idealism left. Those who are dues-paying members of the union should vote against the contract that denies the freedom of choice to them and others. And the rest – the fee-paying employees and the “refuseniks” – should begin bringing this issue to the attention of their State legislators; those who have at least temporarily begun to listen to the voters of the State in this election year.
Local 1020 president tells bargaining unit employee to direct concerns elsewhere
note from the editor:
Elizabeth Henry is a state employee who voluntarily associates with our efforts at Free Conscience. She is one of us who sticks up for the rights of every individual. Ms. Henry is in good standing with the organization known as Free Conscience. Phyllis Alexander is an elected WFSE local 1020 union president who works for the state.
Shared leave is provided by statute (not because of the union's contract negotiations) in RCW 41.04.665 .
Below are some emails Ms. Henry submitted to Free Conscience to illustrate how we, as dissenters against union security, are treated by union leadership. The text in green is from the union:
To: "Elizabeth Henry" [nameremoved]@everettcc.edu
Subject: re: communication
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:37:58 -0700
I do not see any positive outcome in trying to communicate with you. My attempts have been totally misread. I think you should direct your concerns to the Smokey Point office. I also feel that since you insist that I am such a terrible person, you direct any further issues you have directly to the field office area representatives.
Phyllis
Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:01 AM
To: Free Conscience
From: Elizabeth Henry
I was shocked to open up my email this a.m. to find the following message from our [Local 1020] UNION PRESIDENT!!!!!!! Talk about hitting below the belt. Just for the side information, I was recently out of work for a week and a half. My husband had scar revision surgery back in May. It did not go too well. He had what looked like flesh eating disease on his back and he was on massive [amounts] of pain pills and antibiotics. He spent 4 days in the hospital. It was not a fun period. Because I did not have enough time, HR suggested that I request shared leave. Which they handled it all for me. I still am VERY grateful to those that contributed. I was given 40 hours of shared leave.
So because I dare to speak out, because I dare to march to a different drummer and say so [publicly] I am attacked so viciously and without any cause I am shocked. Here is what Phyllis Alexander sent to me:
Sorry I didn't respond yesterday but, I really was shock[ed] by the amount of disdain in your emails. I'm sure management loves your attitude since it seems to be in their interest to break the union. Your note caused a lot of people to thank me for my efforts. One person wondered if you enjoyed your shared leave which is something the union has a part in making sure is a benefit. A few people thought you sounded really angry and suggested you seek assistance. I don't know where all of this hate and skewed information is coming from but, you sure have some issues with the union and politics. I would love to see you attend union meetings so you are more informed.
Phyllis Alexander
June 21, 2006
My name is Anne Yake. I am the one who filed the ULP against WPEA in Dec 04. Ken Koch's case appears to be on hold due to WPEA filing an appeal to PERC regarding their decision on my case and others. I wanted to let you know that today I received the decision for the appeal by WPEA. It appears that PERC has again found in my favor. I applaud them in finally rendering a decision. This should be an indication that Ken's case will go in his favor. At least, I am hoping so.
I think it is sad that the agencies that represent all of us employees did not support the employees that work for them. No state agency should have accepted the ratified contracts knowing that the unions did not abide by their word, in allowing all bargaining unit employees to vote on the contracts. I took my case to the Attorney General's office and the Human Resource Department. They are the ones that entered into a legal contract that said "all bargaining members would be allowed to vote on the contract". Legally, WWU should have stepped up and forced the union to have a re-vote. They decided to not back up their employees and just leave it up to the employees to do something about it. As I reminded them, I work for WWU not the union. It is sad that PERC even had to be involved.
PERC said in this decision "We rule that the Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims asserting breach of the duty of fair representation owed by unions to all bargaining unit employees, with respect to situations where a union agrees to allow all bargaining unit employees to vote on ratification of a collective bargaining agreement. Asserting jursidiction, we find in this case that the WPEA breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) its conduct during the ratification of the 2005-2007 collective bargaining agreement at Western Washington University; (2) failing to allow Yake a meaningful opportunity to review the negotiated contract; and (3) failing to timely repond to employee questions."
I did not go to vote that Saturday, so I was not one who was turned away, as many of our non-union employees were. Had I gone, my case would have been much stronger.
They do state in this decision , "our focus is on how the union conducted itself in relation to the bargaining unit employees, rather than on whether the union violated its contractual agreement with the employer."
Early on in my case, I spoke with the ULP Manager at PERC. Originally, he told me I had no case, as far as PERC is concerned. I had the legal right to file a civil suit against PERC and WWU. He called me a few days later and said that I may actually have a case. I took that chance and proceeded. Had I been an attorney or could afford one, I would have filed the civil suit against both WPEA and WWU. They entered into a legal contract on behalf of the employees of WWU and then neither party honored that contract. It is sad that we don't make enough money to actually stand up for our rights as employees of the state.
I applaud you in what you are doing. Thanks for keeping me posted on the happening of Free Conscience.
Take care,
Anne Yake
June 16, 2006
A question about the NRTW settlement:
"Very good...But I for one am very disappointed in the state workers settlement of the law suit!
I believe they should have insisted going to court. It really changed very little from what I see.
The union is still able to browbeat folks and fire them if they don't join.
So what exactly did we gain??"
A Free Conscience response (personal opinion):
Well, personally, I did not sign onto the case because I did not want to transfer the right to speak on my behalf to the NRTW attorneys. The case was not established as a class action suit inclusive beyond the named plaintiffs. So the "settlement" doesn't mean anything is a done deal for those of us not on the NRTW case. There are a few others of us looking into exploring criminal charges and seeking civil relief legal actions. Looking into racketeering, etc.
On the other hand, a few of those wrongly terminated, are dear precious people. If you had the chance to meet them in person, to see their tears, and then their joy, the suit was well worth it. One of them, Pat Woodward, fired in October 2005, had planned to retire with dignity in April 2006. Now that she has been restored, she is retiring the end of June 2006. The union sure does not need to harm sweet ladies of retirement age.
We need to get our politicians and Governor back under control of the people. Those folks have their own agenda for their own personal gains. We also need people to understand the foundational republic for which this nation stands. It is not a democracy. The constitution was written to protect individuals from mob mentality. Did you realize the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? Thomas Jefferson said something about democracy being nothing more than 51% of the people being able to take away the rights of the other 49%. Democracy is only appropriate for certain issues. Consider whether the nation decided to declare a national religion? What church denomination would win? If it went to a vote, some group would dominate. If white people as the majority could vote on issues that took away the rights of people of other ethnic groups? What about politically independent people. What if only self proclaimed Dems or GOP citizens could vote in any election. If there are now more women than men, could women take away the males right to vote? As a human being, I don't care if 80% of the people vote that women can be drafted. I as an individual would dissent and be in noncompliance. What if we put it to a vote whether people can have dogs. There are just too many personal decisions that are not decisions I am willing to be subject to popular vote. People are supposed to be free in this country to make their own personal peaceful decisions.
What did we gain from the NRTW settlement? We showed anyone watching that a very few individuals (about a dozen) can turn an issue over. WFSE is doing damage control with its propaganda. What did we learn? That if you want to do something the right way, you have to do it yourself. I would not have accepted a settlement, but then again, that's probably why I had the foresight not to sign on to have NRTW represent me.
My hope is that the average regular state employee will quit living and working in fear and and take a firm stand on the relevant issues in the way each person thinks is right. Most seem to concede their rights and liberty because they do not believe strongly enough in their ability to deal with the consequences of standing firm on principles. Either that, or I'm wrong and they are ok with what's going on. But if I am right, what they see is the consequences of not standing firmly on principles. WFSE and the state have effectively brainwashed a lot of people into thinking they as individuals are powerless to control their own fate.
Here is a good quote I found today:
The question of how many courses of action are open to a person is, of course, very important. But it is a different question from that of how far in acting he can follow his own plans and intentions, to what extent the pattern of his conduct is of his own design, directed toward ends of which he has been persistently striving rather than toward necessities created by others in order to make him do what they want. Whether he is free or not does not depend on the range of choice but on whether he can expect to shape his course of action in accordance with his present intentions, or whether somebody else has power so as to manipulate the conditions as to make him act according to that person's will rather than his own.
— Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty [1974]
As long as you have your personal interests and individuality, don't feel like we've lost. They only win if we as individuals concede. I choose to live in a manner of relentlessly holding onto my rights. And the responsibility associated with that, I perceive to be to advocate for the rights of others, and to oppose any form of tyrannical atrocity that crosses my path, to the extent that I have the energy.
A lunchtime discussion about the drive to reverse last year’s "kidnapping" of 88% of L&I employees by the union gave me a bit of a wake-up call, and helped me realize how much work we supporters of Free Conscience have ahead of us.
Two of us in the conversation have been associated with Free Conscience for several months now. The third had no idea that an organization opposed to forced unionization even existed – although he was delighted to hear all about it.
That was the experience others in Free Conscience continue to have as the subject comes up in a variety of settings. It seems that the majority of State employees are angry at how the unions pulled off a clearly rigged vote in order to force them to either fork over big chunks of their paychecks or lose their jobs.
But the common feeling among those State employees is that it’s simply something they have to accept; the unions are too powerful, too well-organized, and have too much support by State officials who are not impartial in performing their jobs.
That feeling of powerlessness is supplemented by the carefully-spread idea that it’s too easy to lose your job if you make waves. "What’s a few bucks a month, if it lets me keep my job? It’s just like paying another tax."
And the unions’ campaign of misinformation hasn’t even kicked into high gear yet. But you can be certain that, with all of the extra cash they’ve extorted from State employees in the past few months, it won’t be long in coming. And when it comes, it will be a blizzard of papers, mailers and posters repeating the same tired slogans, half-truths and outright fabrications.
Followers of Free Conscience need to act NOW to continue our uphill fight. We need to get the word out to every fellow employee in the workplace that an alternative does exist, and that it’s an alternative with no risks attached!
First, urge them to check out the Free Conscience web site to learn the objective facts about the issues. Truth is the most powerful weapon we have against the unions and those who helped them pull off that mass-deception. State employees need to learn the facts of what happened and how it was allowed to take place.
Second, show them how they can register their desire to have a fair and open vote on whether or not they want to belong to a union. They do have the right to vote! They have a right to ballot boxes—not just handing their ballot over the table to union workers -- and they have a right to know that their votes are actually registered in the tally.
It’s been my experience that when you do inform your fellow employees about their options, they will have two reactions. One will be amazement that our organization exists. The other will be delight that they have a way to "fight the power."
The effect is a lot like being "the first kid on the block" to discover something that everyone will eventually want: you wake your friends up to the possibilities that life can be better. And you let them know that they don’t have to just follow what Big Brother tells them to do.
Since I began paying representation fees to WFSE/AFSCME, I have received the benefit of their monthly newsletter, "Washington State Employee."
The March issue – just delivered this week-end – contained the usual number of self-congratulatory, chest-beating statements, meant to reassure one and all that we’re getting more than our money’s worth.
A typical one, on Page 3, referred to the "big victories" WFSE won for their 38,000 employees. One bill mentioned specifically was SHB 2898, the Workplace Communications Bill. That bill, as they described it "removes any real or imagined barriers to contract language allowing you to distribute communications at your worksite on representation, negotiations or other issues."
Like so many things we’ve heard from the union, this declaration of a "big victory" doesn’t stand up to an examination of the facts.
The bill as originally written addressed "distributing communications from an employee organization or charitable organization." On the surface, that looked innocent enough.
In reality it was an attempt to play the final card in a cleverly-designed plan by the union to guarantee itself an unlimited ability to spread propaganda in State offices while at the same time prohibiting any other organizations any ability to communicate in the workplace.
But all it took was for two members of Free Conscience showing up at the House and Senate Committee hearings on the bill, armed with some research and the truth, to trump the union’s ploy.
In their first appearance they brought up the fact that an earlier piece of legislation – RCW 41.80.005 – defined "employee organizations" as those which "exist in whole or in part for purposes of collective bargaining with the employer."
One member of the Committee asked for clarification from the clerk and was informed that, yes, that’s exactly what the RCW said. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Hunt, offered some comment to the effect that that hadn’t been his intent.
Whatever the case, the bill was amended before being passed on for further consideration. The amended version specifically included "organizations that exist for the purpose of opposing collective bargaining or certification of unions."
Of course WFSE spared their members the details of how they’d been caught and made to back off. Instead they declared it a "big victory" and expect the rank-and-file to continue to buy what they said. Unfortunately for them they forgot that along with the thousands of not-so-willing new members came some who aren’t yet subject to "GroupThink" and insist on thinking for themselves.
The lesson to be learned: WFSE appears to have had at least one elaborate, long-term strategy going for them. We need to look not just at what’s happening today, but at what has gone on in the past, and we need to continue to do our homework.
