The Seattle Times noticed.
We wondered last week if lawmakers in the House thought no one would notice that they quietly slipped a pared-down version of last year's controversial worker privacy/gag rule bill into the Senate operating budget.
Specifically, the language would prohibit providers of long-term care or services who receive state funding from using the money to "assist, promote, or deter union organization."
The Seattle Times picked up on it, and came out strongly against the idea today in an editorial.
On the surface, it appears to be a small step. "Compared to the whole economy, long-term homes are not large," the Times writes.
But the paper notes that the principle is the same, and the editorial quotes AWB's Kris Tefft: "We view this provision as a crossing of the Rubicon."
Small or not, the paper also notes that the idea has already been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court invalidated a California statute that attempted to restrict employers from talking with workers about union organizing.
"The same language Justice Stevens struck down has been in and out of the budget bill in Olympia," The Times writes. "It is a bad provision and has to stay out."
It's not a new issue. Lawmakers have been trying for most of this decade to restrict what employers can say to their workers regarding union organizing.
It's worth noting that although the House slipped the language into the budget bill it passed at the end of the regular session, the language was not part of the budget re-passed by the Senate during the special session.
As the Times states, "it has to stay out."
Figuring out how to balance the state budget is a big enough job on its own.
Lawmakers shouldn't use the budget as a way to make a major change in labor law.
