Employer gag bills die Questions raised about union lobbying tactics
Gov. Christine Gregoire and Democratic leaders in the Senate and House announced Wednesday that they have killed two bills that would have made it easier to organize unions.
In statements issued by Gregoire, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, union lobbying tactics related to HB 1528 and SB 5446 were brought into question.
"Immediately upon becoming aware of an e-mail linking potential action on the bill to campaign contributions, bringing the bill forward was no longer an option," the joint statement said. "The e-mail raises serious legal and ethical questions. The matter has been referred to the Washington State Patrol for Investigation."
The Washington Retail Association opposed the bills, which would have banned employers from holding staff meetings to discuss religious or political issues, including union organizing campaigns. The WRA saw the bills as further harming retailers by increasing their costs as they struggle through a deep recession and threatening more jobs in the process.
As newspapers began reporting on the story, Brown sent out an additional statement.
It is normal for legislators to weigh arguments on both sides of issues before deciding whether to vote on bills, she said.
"But we have to draw the line between this normal process and any attempt by any stakeholder to influence us on a given proposal by threatening to give or withhold contributions to our campaigns as political candidates," Brown's statement said.
Neither bill had won support in the full House or Senate when the statements were issued.
A Washington State Patrol spokesman confirmed his department has been contacted to investigate potential criminal allegations regarding communications related to the bills.
To read about state law regarding the legal conduct of lobbyists, click here.
Sources: Seattle Times, The Capitol Record blog
Data breach bills not the right solution By Jan Teague, President/CEO
Credit Unions continue to advocate for bills that would allow them to double dip and collect fees twice for costs associated with re-issuing their credit cards if they had a data breach.
Two bills remain alive today, HB 1149 and SB 5564. Last Friday I attended a meeting with the credit unions and other business lobbyists, House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler and Representative Sharon Santos. The basic ideas tossed around by the credit unions were not supported by any of the business lobbyists. While the credit unions continue to offer up changes to their bills, time is running out. As I write this, the credit unions have yet another idea that they call a "concept" which continues to set a new standard for liability and payment of charges that credit unions already collect.
In my opinion these credit unions should be saving the money they already collect from retailers for any future problems they might have. They collect fees from retailers on each transaction. Over time that translates into a lot of cash for the unexpected single occurrence of a data breach in the course of offering a credit card to their customers.
They also collect cash from their customers in the form of interest income on the credit card. It seems to me that they have more than enough funds to cover their costs and that these cards are big money makers for them. It is a false argument when they say they don't get enough from retailers to cover their costs. That is a statement that translates only if you single out one retailer and not all retailers who are paying the fee to the credit union.
I wonder if one retailer had a data breach in one of their New York stores, would that mean they would have to pay for re-issuance in Washington state for all credit unions who wanted to re-issue their cards and sue for recovery?
I also wonder about the fear factor that goes on with these re-issuances.
Earlier this year I was at JC Penney charging something on my credit union card for around $40. The clerk said it was denied and I said it can't be. But sure enough, the card was not accepted. I called the credit union on Monday and they said that they were "concerned that there might have been a data breach", so they re-issued the card which would get to me in about a week. Well, part of me was OK with that, but still, they didn't say there was a data breach and they didn't say who might have had the data breach. Evidently, the credit union decided it was good public relations and prudent business to assure their customers they didn't have any problems. Now that was their decision, but I don't think they should be able to charge retailers twice for those types of business decisions.
Lastly, as we continue to talk to the credit unions, there is still the very real problem of having different types of legal practices in every state. The credit unions now only want to go after suing the bigger companies, which is where the credit unions could make their largest profit. It doesn't make sense to sue a small retailer who may only have a few credit card customers in their store each year. So the credit unions have begun to talk about this in terms that might get them more sympathy - the "big companies". But at the end of the day, it is still double charging and they are still making millions of dollars every year just in case they might one day have a data breach.
Senate needs to approve SB5963, UI conformity
A bill that would bring the state back into conformity and reduce unemployment insurance rates for Washington Retail Association members needs to be approved before cutoff on Thursday, March 12.
SB 5963 would reduce UI rates to employers who have been overpaying into the unemployment insurance system. The bill also would change the method for determining experience rated costs so that employers would be charged in the same amount that benefits are paid out. The bill offers much-needed financial relief to businesses struggling to remain open during the recession.
The bill, which enjoys bipartisan support, would put the state back into compliance with federal unemployment insurance regulations and deserves to be passed this session. It not only would wipe out liability on the part of the state, but provide struggling businesses with much-needed financial relief to help them cope with the pressures of the recession.
Family physicians join WRA in opposing HB 1402
The Washington Academy of Family Physicians has joined the Washington Retail Association in opposition to HB 1402.
The bill would prohibit contact with treating physicians during an appeal of a workers compensation case.
The business community is solidly against the bill, which would drastically affect how all employers, including self insured companies, could manage a claim during an appeal. The physicians' group agrees the bill would have significant implications for members and affect how their doctors conduct business.
The bill would delay the management of claims and treats the Department of Labor and Industries differently than self-insured employers, even though both groups are responsible for payment of time loss and benefits in a timely manner. The self-insured employer would not be able to talk with the physician about issues that may impact the management of the claim if there also were an issue before the Board of Appeals.
The bill is an example of trial attorneys attempting to gain an unfair advantage in workers' compensation cases. It further would put physicians at risk if they communicated with employers if the case were pending before the Board of Appeals.
The bill could come up for a vote this week.
Federal employee gag bill introduced Retailers urge defeat of the bill
The National Retail Federation urged defeat of a federal "card check" bill introduced into Congress this week.
The federal Employee Free Choice Act would take from employees the right to a secret ballot to determine the outcome of union organizing campaigns.
"Secret ballot elections are a cornerstone of American democracy," said Rob Green, the National Retail Federation's Vice President for Government and Political Affairs. "Voters have a secret ballot when the go to the polls on Election Day, Congress has a secret ballot when lawmakers choose the leaders of the House and Senate, and we believe workers deserve a secret ballot when they choose whether to be represented by a union."
NRF has launched a Website to provide information about the federal bill, sponsored by George Miller, D-Calif., House Education and Labor Committee Chairman, and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. President Barack Obama also has pledged his support of the bill.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association also is actively lobbying against the bill across the country, including targeting campaigns in states including Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Arkansas, Nebraska and Colorado. The campaign includes editorial page opinion pieces, direct mail and paid advertising highlighting the ills of the bill for business.
Besides robbing employees and employers of the voice in union organizing campaigns, the bill would increase business costs in the midst of a deep national recession. This would make it harder for businesses to survive and increase layoffs.
Source: National Retail Federation
"Card check" would lead to layoffs, new study concludes
Unemployment would rise if Congress approved the union-backed Employee Free Choice Act, a new study has concluded.
Unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs the following year, the study by economist Anne Layne-Farrar found. She projected that job opportunities would decrease and inflation would increase if the bill, introduced this week, were to become law.
Layne-Farrar, who holds a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago, serves on the non-partisan firm LECG Consulting, headquartered in Emeryville, California. The findings won support of the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs, which includes the International Council of Shopping Centers, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Builders and Contractors.
For every 3.9 million jobs that were unionized, another 1.6 million workers either would lose their jobs or not be able to find employment, concluded Layne-Farrar, who urged defeat of the bill in Congress. It would eliminate the employee secret ballot and provide for union organization if a majority of employees signed a card indicating they wanted a union. The industry term for the bill is "card check."
Two similar bills that were introduced into the Washington State Legislature were dropped from consideration this week due to concerns about alleged improprieties in union lobbying tactics.
"The unintended consequences of passing EFCA are likely to be significant," Layne-Farrar said. "Increased unemployment and reduced labor supply are very high prices to pay during any time, but especially during a recession."
The U.S. economy has lost 4.4 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, the Labor Department reports. The U.S. unemployment rate of 8.1 percent is the higher in 25 years.
In her study, Layne-Farrar concluded that higher union wages lead to fewer positions for unionized workers and slower employment growth as firms shift work to non-unionized sectors.
Retro programs supported in Olympian letter
A letter to the editor this week in The Olympian calls attention to a financial benefit of retrospective rating programs to the Department of Labor and Industries.
In his letter, Bob Hauk, Vice President for Client Services for the Washington Manufacturers Council, suggests that a change in L&I money management policies could correct for the department's overpayment errors discovered to retro programs.
In effect, Hauk's letter points to L&I management practices as the best way to improve its relationship with retro programs as opposed to proposed state legislation to change the way retro programs are regulated.
In the interest of adding clarity to this issue, Hauk's letter follows in its entirety:
Labor & Industries merits a thumbs down
The Department of Labor & Industries deserves a second "thumbs down" for their lack of full disclosure of the total benefits they receive from Retro programs.
Retro programs pay refunds when claims costs are less than the paid premiums. Actual paid and reserved costs are multiplied by a loss development factor, typically in the range of 1.85 to 2.9. The purpose of developing claims costs is to set aside enough money for future liabilities.
Only a percentage of the money set aside is used, so L&I pockets the windfall instead of refunding it to the Retro participants. Since the 2000 refund year, L&I has increased its percentage set aside by 26 percent. This administrative practice has resulted in an underpayment of tens of millions of dollars annually to Retro participants.
Since 2000, L&I has amassed enough funds to pay for a $315 million rate holiday for the last half of 2007 and a $37 million dividend to only non-Retro employers in the state. Most, if not all, of the $352 million was collected from underpaying Retro programs.
The current reported Retro overpayments from the coding error are more than offset by the L&I practice of routinely underpaying Retro program participants. L&I, not Retro programs, should receive more oversight particularly because Washington is ranked 48th of the 50 states for highest workers' compensation program costs - 70 percent higher than the national average!
Bob Hauk, vice president for client services, Washington Manufacturers Council
Source: The Olympian
Supreme Court dismisses tax challenge
The state Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a case that would have overturned a voter-approved law requiring a two-thirds "supermajority" vote of the Legislature to raise taxes.
Senate Minority Leader Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla, called the ruling a "win for the people of Washington."
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, brought the case to test the constitutionality of Initiative 960, which voters passed in 2007. It expanded on Initiative 601, which voters approved in 1993.
Brown argued that I-960 was unconstitutional because it changes the state constitution's requirement that lawmakers need a simple majority to pass laws.
But the court decided the matter was a political question, not a legal one that it should answer.
The issue came to a head last year when Lt. Governor Brad Owen blocked a bill extending a liquor surcharge from going to the House without a two-thirds vote. The bill received a simple majority of support in a 25-21 vote.
Brown denied her case was aimed at making it easier for lawmakers to raise taxes. Further, she said any proposal to raise taxes in hopes of closing the current $8.3 billion state budget revenue shortfall would be placed on a ballot for voters to decide.
Sources: Seattle Post Intelligencer, Capitol Record blog
Recession slows retail tax payments Electronics retailers, pharmacies show small gains
Retail excise tax payments to the state fell 5.8 percent in January compared to the same month a year ago, Department of Revenue figures show.
The lowered payments reflect the recession, which finds the state $8.3 billion short of revenues to cover projected state spending the next two years.
The retail categories of building materials, gasoline stations and apparel showed the largest decreases in excise tax payments for January sales activity. Building materials/garden equipment dropped 22.3 percent in January, followed by gasoline stations, down 16.7 percent, and apparel and accessories, down 6.6 percent. The data is for stores that pay their taxes electronically, which covers most large retailers.
Two retail categories, electronics and appliances, and drug and health stores showed gains in tax payments that reflected January sales. Revenue department figures show an increase of 9.4 percent in tax payments from the electronics and appliances category, and a 4.9 percent increase in the drug and health stores category.
Source: Economic and Revenue Forecast Council
The Washington Retail Association, WRA, is a 501 C 6 trade association formed to advocate for Washington State’s retailers at the local, state and national level. Since 1987, the WRA has protected Washington's retailers from unreasonable taxes, fees, regulations and legislation. The efforts of the WRA benefit all Washington state retailers and help fuel statewide economic growth.
