Thanking the union for their support

The budget that was just passed by the Washington State Legislature includes an interesting item. All state employees will get a 3.2% raise across the board, but those who are members of the Washington Federation of State Employees, the union for state workers, will get their raises a full two months before those employees who are not union members.

Most rank-and-file state employees were paid based on a standard salary scale for 40 years.

But the budget just passed by the Legislature is the first to include union contracts for pay and benefits, which go into effect July 1.

Workers without a union contract have to wait two months, until Sept. 1, for the same 3.2 percent across-the-board pay increase, the first since 2001.

There are some who don't think this is right.

Paying union employees and nonunion workers differently might not be legal, according to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a privately funded organization that has sued unions in the past.

Foundation analyst Michael Reitz referred to an appeals court decision this week, in which the court ruled against different pay rates for state employees who do similar work at colleges and in general government.

"You've got two very similar situations. It doesn't seem like it would be in the best interest of the state to set up another legislatively distinguished class of employees," Reitz said.

As you would expect, the union supported Democrats for the legislature and for governor. This is almost certainly payback on the part of Democrats for that support. However, the recent court case that the article mentions may throw a monkey wrench into the works.

It also benefits the union in other ways:

The difference sounds like discrimination to Jen Campbell, a worker in the Division of Child Support from Tacoma.

"I am shocked that the state government would allow a union or even maybe assist the union in taking control of every state employee," Campbell said.

The first she heard of the different pay raise dates was through the news media, she said. And although she will be covered by a union contract beginning in July, she wishes she weren't.

The union would love to have every state employee as a member. If that ever happens, its power will increase significantly since there won't be any other option for employees. In closing, Ms. Campbell reiterates one of the big problems with unions today:

"I don't believe the union has my best interest at heart," Campbell said. "I don't believe it uses its dues for the purposes that I think are important and valuable and moral."

Employees who have no choice but to be in a union have no real control over what union leadership does with the money they pay in union dues. Since unions are so active politically, some employees find themselves in the situation where they are unwillingly subsidizing policies and candidates that they disagree with. At least now state employees have the option of not being in the union but expect the union, and the Democrats they support, to work to change that.