This summer, government employees’ unions and the state are engaged in negotiations over the next set of contracts. These collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) will govern employer-employee relations from July 2017 through June 2019.

Because these negotiations are closed to the public, however, it can be very difficult to get an idea of what kinds of proposals are being exchanged and what deals are being made. Government watchdogs have to wait until the contracts are finalized and approved by the legislature before being able to request documents related to the negotiations under the Public Records Act.

After the Legislature approved the current batch of CBA’s in 2015, the Freedom Foundation requested documents about the positions the state and the unions took in bargaining.
Comparing the starting bargaining positions of the state and SEIU 775 helps shed some light on the union’s intentions and priorities.

Not surprisingly, SEIU 775 was able to win some unfortunate concessions from the state during negotiations.

Article 2.3, for example, granted union representatives additional opportunities to pressure new employees into signing union membership cards. Article 4 allowed the union to continue their automatic dues-collecting scheme, which requires IPs to opt out of union membership and dues payment, rather than opting in. 

Also, the state is now required to pass out union materials at orientations.

But not all of the union’s proposals went through. Some were too outrageous even for the state’s taste. One especially galling proposal was a potential new Article 8.5 in the union’s initial bargaining proposal:

“The Employer and the Union waive all rights to trial in court before a judge or jury on all disputes and/or claims of any form whatsoever, at law, in equity or otherwise, related to union membership dues or agency fees collected pursuant to collective bargaining and/or RCW 41.56.110 and .113…. The Employer and the Union agree that all disputes and/or claims related to union membership dues or agency fees collected pursuant to collective bargaining and/or RCW 41.56.113, including (by way of example and not limitation) all claims brought by the Union to secure payment of such dues or fees shall be litigated and determined exclusively by arbitration conducted under the American Arbitration Association’s Rules for Impartial Determination of Union Fees…  Any arbitration award and/or decision rendered under this section shall be final and binding on all parties thereto, and shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction.”

Essentially, SEIU 775 wanted to avoid facing a judge or jury anytime there was an issue concerning membership dues, whether that issue was coming from the employer or an employee.
Instead, the union wanted to bring those issues before an arbitrator. This is a very specific exception and indicates the union fully expected to be sued over the illegal dues deduction scheme it implemented in Article 4.

Rather than being subjected to an expensive court fight, the union sought to have any lawsuits brought against the union regarding its dues deduction practices settled by an arbitrator.

Thankfully, the state didn’t buy it. SEIU 775 is currently embroiled in at least three lawsuits from groups of IPs, two of whom are being represented by the Freedom Foundation, for taking IPs’ money without their permission.

The union’s proposal also highlights an interesting issue. The union is tasked with representing the employees in negotiations with the employer. But at the end of the day, a union is its own entity and will at times have different interests than the employees it is supposed to represent.

In this proposal, the union sought to exempt itself from being sued by its members by waiving its members’ legal right to formal court proceedings.

In the end, the state chose to keep its options open on this issue and this article was dropped in negotiations.

Article 8.5 wasn’t the only place the union went too far for the state. Among SEIU 775’s initial proposals were requirements that the state both collect and submit union membership cards.

They also sought even more chances for union representatives to talk directly to individual providers, which the state would pay for.

A quick look at the union’s initial proposals is revealing, but it would have been even more interesting to see the back-and-forth on the issues.

How attached was the union to Article 8.5? Was this the union throwing stuff up against the wall and seeing what stuck? Or was this a core proposal that they only gave up after a long struggle?

It’s hard to know for sure, because of the lack of transparency surrounding government union collective bargaining negotiations in Washington. Until reforms are made to increase the public oversight of the process, many questions must go unanswered.