the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation
Posted by Sonya Jones - August 05, 2008Last week, there was a joint legislative public hearing discussing the gambling pact the Governor signed with the Spokanes. Attorneys for the Spokanes questioned regulation of tribal gambling, citing to the state’s lack of regulation on other industries. From the Spokesman Review:
But Scott Wheat, another Spokane tribal attorney, bristled at the question. Lawmakers don't tell Boeing how many airplanes it can make, he said, or Coors how many beers it can sell. Nor do they tell the state lottery how many tickets it can print.
"It's very difficult for tribes to hear this discussion of creating artificial limits and an artificial market," he said. "That's not done in other businesses and industries."
And, here’s the punchline:
Gambling is different, lawmakers replied. Its social fallout and gambling addiction, they said, give the state a legitimate interest in regulating it.
In the meantime, the state has monopoly ownership of liquor stores. Seems just a bit contradictory, don’t you think?
Posted by Mike Reitz - October 26, 2007Union rep insults “third party stakeholders” - When SEIU et. al, sued to keep us from getting these labor negotiation records, Jay Ubelhart, a deckhand with the Washington State Ferry, memorably said, "If I, in the heat of negotiations, stated I didn't give a damn about those complaining [ferry] customers and it was written down by a member of the management team, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation or a media outlet would print it on the front page of any communications organ of their choosing."
This next image looks like one of those sessions the unions wanted to keep out of the public eye. I'm not sure what it all means, but it’s colorful.
Breaking news to the media - And for you media types who wonder how the parties decide to break the news to the media, here’s your chance.
Posted by Mike Reitz - October 25, 2007During discussions on compensation, a contentious exchange erupted regarding LPNs and ACs (medical employees). These employees represented by WFSE had a 7.75-hour work day, but the union complained that they often work full 8-hour days. One union representative complained that “7.75 hour work days are a misnomer” because LPNs and ACs often skip or work through breaks.
The state negotiator suggested that the nurses officially change their hours from 7.75 to 8 if, in practice, they already work an eight-hour day. But when the state negotiator mentioned SEIU, whose nurses were given a 20 percent raise, the WFSE negotiator went ballistic: “You talk about SEIU, they agreed t[o] that for one reason, 20%. If [we] have 20%, then great to agree to.”
The state refused the absurd demand, stating that WFSE nurses were not “42% behind” as the SEIU nurses were. 
Posted by Mike Reitz - October 24, 2007When collective bargaining and civil service reform were passed in 2002, competitive contracting was included to gain the support of Republicans. Despite the political bargaining, contracting out has been underutilized by the state and vigorously attacked by unions who file unfair labor practice complaints against agencies that try to implement the practice.
Despite all the benefits she has gained from public-sector unions, the governor still sees collective bargaining as part of a "three-legged stool; csr [civil service reform], cb [collective bargaining], and con out" and "will abide by the law"…at least, when JLARC is conducting a study to see if agencies are using the process.
If only the governor expressed her resolve more openly—not just behind the closed doors of collective bargaining.
Check out Amber Gunn's op-ed on the state's failure to engage in competitive contracting.
Posted by Tom Henry - October 18, 2007The U.S. House of Representatives failed today to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP health care bill. In some states, the bill would have extended children's health care coverage to families making as much as $83,000 per year and taken them off of private insurance plans. The proposal would have been funded, in part, by raising the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents per pack to $1 per pack.
Gov. Gregoire and some of her colleagues already plan to sue the federal government over new rulemaking on eligibility requirements.
The ever-wise Michelle Malkin had a different take this morning.
Posted by Mike Reitz - October 17, 2007The negotiations were not without humor. WFSE reps agreed to consider the state’s proposal for a smoke-free workplace while they had a smoke break.
Posted by Mike Reitz - October 16, 2007What’s in a raise?
Initial compensation proposals were laid out during the July 27 negotiations. During the conversation, the state asked the union how it came up with its initial proposals. Here’s your chance to sit in on the conversation.
When state negotiator Diane Leigh pointed out that the raise due a 30-year employee in 2007 would be 17.5 percent plus applicable salary survey adjustments, the union responded, “Yes, [it’s a] way of hitting the lottery. Not ashamed of that…”
Anyone want to calculate those odds?
“Workplace communication” or union subsidy?
The union wanted union state employees to be able to drop literature off at the desks of colleagues during work hours. Alternatives offered by the state (lobbies, lunch rooms and mailboxes) were not enough. Not even employees’ home addresses were enough. Why? It costs the union $15,000 to send out a member mailing.
Union internal “poll” indicts union
An internal union poll found that before "fair share" forced all represented employees to pay dues or lose their job, 45 percent of members thought communication was the most significant improvement the union could make. As of July 27, 2006, 80 percent believed the union needed to improve communication.
Not to live in the past, but could this be a no-confidence vote against the union’s organizing tactics?
Posted by Mike Reitz - October 15, 2007As promised, we're reviewing the union negotiation records from our recent lawsuit. The first in this series focuses on talks between the state and the Washington Federation of State and Municipal Employees.
The highest-profile issue in CBA negotiations is compensation.
The diagram below, prepared by EFF, lays out many of the marquee terms contained in the general government contract between the state and WFSE. The diagram starts at the outside with the initial terms of both sides and works its way toward the center and the “Final Contract.” 
Overall, the state can be commended for resisting exorbitant union demands.
Some of the union’s initial demands were just ludicrous. A 5 percent raise for employees with 20 to 29 years of service and 10 percent for those with 30 or more years of service? Thirty-year employees already at the top of their pay scales would get a 24 percent raise over two years. Shift premiums of $2.50 to $3.75 are also too much.
A few noteworthy items:
The state’s opening position to spend $8 million on class consolidation versus the union’s opening position at $5 million. These funds were for the implementation of a legal settlement from the Schroll case requiring that similar classes of workers who complete the same tasks be consolidated. The settlement was to be implemented over multiple years—as reflected in the union’s initial position—but the state’s offer reflected its plan to implement the entire the settlement on July 1, 2007.
The 5 and 10 percent “longevity step increases” for workers at the 20 and 30-year mark. It is interesting to note that the state immediately shut these demands out of the debate. OFM reports that during the negotiations there were 8,374 union-represented state employees with 20-29 years of seniority and another 2,358 with 30 or more years seniority (not including higher education employees). If each of these earned the average union-represented state employee salary of $42,518—they actually earn much more—the proposal would have cost the state nearly $23 million.
Posted by Mike Reitz - October 08, 2007
Last November, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a public document request with the Office of Financial Management for the proposals and notes generated during negotiations for the 2007-08 state collective bargaining agreements.
The state agreed to release the documents, but a coalition of unions sued to prevent disclosure.
The unions punctuated the ensuing litigation with highly entertaining arguments and quotes from union members. Many of the best were picked up by newspapers and bloggers: What public right to know?, Unions want negotiating notes kept secret, Open shutters on labor negotiations, Our View: Closed-Door Union.
On August 24, 2007, Judge Christopher Washington ruled in favor of public disclosure and permitted the release of the documents.
We've been analyzing the negotiation notes and proposals. Over the next few days annd weeks we'll post our findings.
First up: the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE).
