Olympia Business Watch

I-1053 legal challenge could make voters ask 'What's the use in voting?'

Voters could not have been more clear last fall on Initiative 1053, The Columbian editorial board wrote yesterday in response to the legal challenge brought this week against the measure.

In Clark County, home of Rep. Jim Moeller -- one of the dozen Democratic lawmakers who signed on as plaintiffs -- the initiative passed with a 71.3 percent approval, the paper writes.

The Columbian brings up the statistic after noting that Moeller's Web page includes this statement: "A big part of my job -- by the far most important part -- is listening to what Vancouver and othe Clark County folks have to say regarding the issues before us."

On I-1053, the people have spoken. Loud and clear. And with respect to a supermajority vote of legislators to raise taxes, they have spoken several times.

Is Moeller listening selectively, the paper asks?

Every time lawmakers overturn the will of the people, they risk alienating them -- possibly to the point that voters give up.

The paper concludes with this warning: "Legislators who disagree certainly have their right to pursue a legal remedy, but that doesn't make them right. And they do so at their own peril, as voters justifiably ask: 'What's the use in voting, if our voice will just be ignored?'"

 

Supreme Court: No Job Protection for Medical Marijuana Patient

Yesterday, the Washington Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in a case asking whether an employee may be fired for medical marijuana use under the state law authorizing qualifying patients to use the drug.

Employee Jane Roe, suing under a psuedonynm, was fired from Teletech, a Colorado-based call-center company with a location in Bremerton, after failing a drug test.  She failed the test because she used medical marijuana with a doctor's referral under the state's Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MUMA), passed by the voters in 1998.  

After her termination, Roe sued, claiming MUMA implicitly protects an employee's off-site use of medical marijuana, and that her termination was a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy supporting medical marijuana use.  Roe's suit was strongly supported by the American Civil Liberties Union.  Teletech was represented by AWB board member Stoel Rives LLP.

In an 8-1 decision written by the newest member of the court, Justice Charles Wiggins, the Supreme Court flatly rejected both contentions.  Analyzing the statute, the court reasoned that while it allows a defense against criminal prosecution for marijuana possession, nothing in the plain language or obvious intent of the law suggests employers would face legal liability for refusing to accommodate marijuana use by employees.

Brunell: Texas leads the nation in tort reform -- and jobs

Reckless lawsuits sometimes make headlines -- a woman is awarded $2.7 million after spilling coffee in her lap, a judge sues a dry cleaner for $54 million for losing his pants.

But each year tens of thousands of anonymous lawsuits choke our court systems, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

And they're not all harmless cases that are quickly dismissed.

Even dismissed lawsuits are expensive and all of us pay the price for this abuse whether we realize it or not, Brunell writes.

In Texas, where officials are pursuing an aggressive -- and successful -- pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda, Gov. Rick Perry recently signed a tort reform law includes a provision requiring the loser to pay court costs and attorney fees of the other party, similar to what's done in some courts in Europe, Australia and Canada.

"The United States is one of the few industrial nations where that doesn't happen," Brunell writes. "But that may be changing."

 

Rewind: Video of AG McKenna's remarks on health care, gang violence

Attorney General Rob McKenna was the guest at Thursday's Lobby Lunch meeting, which just happened to be the day that the Florida judge ruling on one of the health-care law challenges issued a new ruling. Listen to McKenna explain the judge's decision, and why he agrees with it.

McKenna also spoke about Washington's growing gang violence problem, and his plan to address it. In the first video, he describes the problem in detail, offering some alarming statistics: Washington ranks fourth in the nation in drive-by shootings, and has experienced a 45 percent increase in gang-related shootings in the last 12 months.

In this video, McKenna outlined how House Bill 1126 would address the problem.

Gov. Gregoire's Keynote Remarks at AWB's 2011 Legislative Day

(Recorded: Feb. 03, 2011) Gov. Chris Gregoire’s keynote remarks at AWB's annual Legislative Day luncheon. Topics include unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, state employee pensions and education.

AWB raises concerns over campaign disclosure reform bill

Passing a law requiring political action committees to include the name of the entity that created it is cumbersome for a group with a name as long as the Association of Washington Business, AWB's Kris Tefft said Thursday.

That was one of the red flags that Tefft raised during testimony on Senate Bill 5021, a bill sparked by the Moxie Media scandal this summer that's aimed at making it easier for people to determine who is funding a political campaign.

AWB isn't particularly for or against the bill, Tefft said, just concerned about some of the language in the first draft. Two other areas of concern: A proposal to ban political committees from receiving contributions from other political committees; and language that would make it harder for a person or entity to create more than two political committees.

Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver, the prime sponsor and chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Elections, said he heard similar comments from others and he welcomed a chance to make some changes to the bill that he admitted was more rushed than he would like.

AWB files ballot title challenge to Referndum 52

AWB filed a ballot title challenge in court today over Referendum 52, which seeks voter approval for a $505 million bond sale to finance green energy construction projects in schools.

The ballot title fails to inform voters that, if approved, the measure will make a temporary bottled water tax permanent. Revenue from the tax will be used to pay the bond debt.

"We're just asking the court to amend the ballot title, which is its prerogative, in order to include this detail," Kris Tefft, AWB general council, said in a press release. "The ballot measure should be straightforward, informational and free from political speech."

Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center said in a blog post that supporters of the measure couldn't say they weren't warned.

"During the floor debate, an amendment was introduced to change the suggested ballot title," Mercier writes. "Sponsors of the amendment warned that the proposed ballot title would invite a legal challenge."

The amendment failed by a vote of 16-30, Mercier notes.

A hearing on the challenge is set for May 28 at 9 a.m.

Surprise! New rest break requirement in federal health care law

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasn't kidding when she said "[w]e have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." Tucked away among the various new tax provisions and insurance industry regulations is an important, but seemingly unrelated, new employment law.  Covered employers will want to take note, and take steps to ensure compliance. 

Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to require employers provide rest breaks and facilities for nursing mothers to express breast milk.  The new provision reads:

(1) An employer shall provide--
   `(A) a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child's birth each time such employee has need to express the milk; and
  `(B) a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.
    `(2) An employer shall not be required to compensate an employee receiving reasonable break time under paragraph (1) for any work time spent for such purpose.
    `(3) An employer that employs less than 50 employees shall not be subject to the requirements of this subsection, if such requirements would impose an undue hardship by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the employer's business.
    `(4) Nothing in this subsection shall preempt a State law that provides greater protections to employees than the protections provided for under this subsection.'.

Note that smaller businesses, with fewer than 50 employees, are not as such exempted from the provision.  Such an employer may still be covered unless it can demonstrate an "undue hardship" complying with the law. 

House sneaks union gag rule into Senate budget

It was the hottest issue of the 2009 session.

And it's made a triumphant return in the closing days of the 2010 regular session. 

We're talking, of course, about the worker privacy issue -- the rule barring employers from requiring employees to attend meetings, listen, respond to or participate in any communication related to political, labor or religious matters. It was the labor community's top priority for the 2009 session, and it all came to a screeching halt with one errant e-mail last March.

Well, it's back, in a skinnied-down version. In the rush to move the supplemental operating budget along, lawmakers in the House quietly inserted language restricting employers or service providers who receive DSHS funding.

Students of the 2009 Legislature may recall that Gov. Gregoire, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, and House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, collectively agreed to shelve legislation last session after an e-mail linked action on the bills to campaign contributions. Union representatives, outraged over the death of their bills, vowed revenge at the polls with the establishment of their DIMEPAC (Don't Invest in More Excuses Political Action Committee).

Flash forward to today and, specifically, to the 2010 Senate operating budget. Upon reviewing the  proposal, AWB General Counsel Kris Tefft observed the insertion of the gag rule language in a substitute version offered by the House. He outlined his concerns in this memo to top members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee. Writes Tefft: 

Notably, these provisions were not proposed by the Senate in the original or substitute form of SB 6444, but rather, inserted by the House in its striking amendment. Specifically, at sections 205 and 206 (pp. 73 and 81-82 respectively) of SB 6444, the following language is inserted:

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.

The inclusion of such language is invalid, Tefft notes, under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States Chamber of Commerce v. Brown. The Court invalidated a California statute that prohibited private employers from receiving state program funds of more than $10,000 in any program year from using the money to "assist, promote or deter union organizing."

Yet, there it is. And while it is a much narrower version of the worker privacy bills proposed last year -- the clause specifically refers to providers who receive state funds for long-term care services or services for people with developmental disabilities -- it opens the door. Thirty-one words. Almost four lines of text.  

Did they think no one would notice?

Could Washington's Nation-Leading Minimum Wage Go Down Next Year?

Probably not.  But as news yesterday came out that the adjustable minimum wage rate in Colorado will likely go down with inflation next year (ably dilated in this blog post by the Washington Policy Center's Carl Gipson), one may wonder why our state's inflation-adjusted minimum wage rate wouldn't also go down if (and as) inflation indices trend downward.

Colorado's minimum wage law was adopted in 2006 as an amendment to the state constitution.  It states, in pertinent part, that Colorado's annual minimum wage "shall be adjusted annually for inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index used for Colorado." Note that an "adjustment" can go either up or down.

Washington's minimum wage law, by contrast, appears to be a one-way ratchet.  Our statute, adopted by initiative in 1998, says the Department of Labor & Industries shall "calculate an adjusted minimum wage rate to maintain employee purchasing power by increasing the current year's minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation."  Note the third verb: "increasing". 

I suppose an argument could be made that if the rate of inflation is negative, the adjusted rate should go down despite the word "increasing" -- after all, keeping the rate the same the following year because of negative inflation isn't "increasing" it either.  Courts in Washington have done stranger things with statutes. 

But I wouldn't hold my breath.