Just when we thought the issue had blown over, the Worker
Privacy Act has somehow found its way back into the supplemental operating
budget.
The Worker Privacy Act, (or Employer Gag Bill, as we
like to call it) didn’t even make it on the table this legislative session.
Instead, lawmakers decided to wait and see if a similar bill passed in Oregon
last year would survive the legal challenges filed
against it by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In addition, political
heat still emanating from 2009 gave legislators reason to put this bill on
the shelf until things cool off.
Not only that, but our state AG
issued a statement last July proclaiming that the bill is preempted by
federal law which protects an employer’s freedom of expression as long as it
doesn’t threaten punishment or promise benefit to an employee.
Just today, Jocelyn McCabe of AWB announced on their
blog that upon reviewing the 2010 Senate operating budget proposal, AWB
General Counsel Kris Tefft found a scaled-back version of the gag language
inserted in a striking amendment by the House. The language would apply to employers
or service providers who receive DSHS funding.
McCabe cites the troubling language of SB 6444 as
the following:
“No employer, provider, or entity receiving state funds to
provide long-term care services or services to the developmentally disabled may
use these funds to assist, promote, or deter union organization.”
According to our own General Counsel, Mike Reitz, this bill
is fraught with substantive and procedural problems.
“The legislature cannot amend substantive law in an
appropriations bill, especially when the subject matter was previously
contained within separate legislation that ultimately failed. The prohibition
on ‘logrolling’ is to prevent the legislature from changing the law in a
lengthy budget bill without adequate public review—which seems to be what the
legislature is doing here,” Reitz says.
H/t to “The Piper” for drawing our attention to this matter.