Printable View
Is it legal to change laws (within Washington State) that alter or invalidate an existing contract between parties without the consent of both parties of the contract? Particularly if those changes would place a financial obligation on the parties of one side of the contract to pay money (not originally owed) to the parties of the other side (the side requesting the changing of the law)?
Since one person cannot unilaterally enact a statute, your question is meaningless.
Mayby I should have clarified...one party did not, by themself, change the law. This party (a PRIVATE special interest group) petitioned/lobbied the state legislature to change the law that now force several thousand individuals to pay a fee to that very party. Does that clarify or give it any more meaning?
actually, I figured that to be the situation, or something similar but it still does not change the outcome. It actually weakens your position since the other party actually had no ability to even inititate statute. If you want to complain about this, complain to your legislators.
Also, as before, a new statute typically does not alter an existing contract.
Just out of my curiousity, could you explain the situation a bit? An explanation would make your question make more sense as to the applicability of any new statute.
This is a bit of a sticky-wicket – because it has the appearance of corruption at some pretty high levels – which is probably why no one wants to take it on or even discuss it. And I have written to my legislators, I’ve written to my senators, I’ve even written to the Governor. But no one seems to care. Everyone knows what was done was wrong, but they are either too afraid, too apathetic, or too involved to correct it. There is real fear out there – I’ve seen it first-hand. And, to be honest, I’m going out on a limb here myself just bringing it to a forum such as this – but I have a stronger desire to find someone who can help make a wrong into a right.
For the background, this has to do with State Employee Unionism. Regardless of how anyone feels about whether or not State employees should be represented by unions, this issue is about due process and how laws were changed to force compulsory unionism upon all state employees.
Existing laws provided ALL employees the right to vote on a union security clause. These laws were not followed between 2002 and 2004 and were subsequently repealed in 2005 – on the EXACT same date the new contract became effective in which the security clause was incorporated – and this was done without a proper vote of all those employees who would be forced into paying the dues.
Washington Administrative Code - WAC 356-42 was the law that governed how a security clause was to be established. It outlines that should a union desire the security clause in their contract, the union petitions the state for said security clause. The state then holds an election of ALL those represented to determine if the majority of those represented desired such a clause. Only after a majority of those represented vote yes to a security clause, can a security clause be included in a contract.
But rather than follow that law, which would have assured Due Process, the unions petitioned the legislature to change laws that now simply allow a security clause to be incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. I have documented evidence that proves the union knew in 2002 that they desired a security clause then and were actively taking steps to make it a negotiated item rather than follow the rules of collective bargaining.
Prior to the 2005 contract, we were under the previous contract. That contract would have bound us to the existing rules of collective bargaining (WAC-356-42) – so if laws were changed that invalidated the rules of collective bargaining, would that not invalidate the contract as well? And if the contract is invalidated, then would not the bargaining units established in the contract no longer exist? And would not unions need to reestablish the bargaining units in order to negotiate a new contract? If the rules of collective bargaining were not invalidated than should not the union have followed those rules? And if they didn’t, is that not a breach of contract? There is just so many things that are wrong with this, it’s hard to get it all down a paper.
I could go on and on, but that’s probably enough to start. Can you see me concern?
the effective date is not relevent. The contract was valid and enforcable as written upon signiing by all parties required. The law could not alter the contract. the contract was controlled by the law in force at the time of ratification and acceptance by all interested parties.Quote:
subsequently repealed in 2005 – on the EXACT same date the new contract became effective in which the security clause was incorporated
If the contract included the scurity agreement without proper installation, that section would not be enforcable sue to the improper inclusion of the section.
A court may allow the inclusion now that the law has been changed but it would not be automatic. It could be fought on the grounds you mention.
Typically contract of this type have verbiage that invalidate the improper section while keeping the remaining portions in effect. It would rarely invalidate the entire contract and it surely would not dissolve the union and its' ability to bargain on behalf of its' members.
The only way to have the union invalidated or removed would be by actions specifically intended to do that such as decertification or some action by the state (which is very difficult due to the federal rules of unions and the actions available). Any action against the union is effectively an action against each member unless it is proven the union (which is "of the members" is as a whole, operating illegally, which is improbable since it is nearly impossible for the entire membership to operate illegally) At best, the leadership could be exposed to liability for their actions but this will not dissolve the union or even the local chapter of a union.
I think you are over complicating the matter and extending it way beyond its legal implications.
What you need to do, if you should choose to accept the assignment is contact the NLRB. Explain it all to them and see if they believe there were improper or illegal actions on any parties part. They are the controlling federal entity that would deal with this.
I thank you for your thoughts and suggestions, but it sounds like I'm up proverbial the creek without a paddle. I did contact the NLRB back when this all began, but they specifically exclude state employees from their protection.
But here's a few more facts you may want to ponder:
During the negotiations of the 2005 contract, the security clause was included "on the condition" that the unions were to allow ALL represented employees the opportunity to ratify the contract - not just members. They did not do that - and the State did not hold them accountable to doing that. PERC rulings have declared that unions failed to uphold their end of that bargain, but all that happened was the unions got a slap on the wrist and were told to not do it again. Some 39,000 state employees should have voted on that contract. A mere 6,133 actually voted - and of those, only 4,860 voted in favor - and most of those didn't even know about the security clause.
So what do we have. The Federal government won't protect us, the State Government won't protect us, and we public employees have neither the money nor the clout to take on big boss unions to fight for what is right. We should probably just continue to pay the extortion, keep our mouths shut, and let America erode to a thoroughly corrupt nation. I'm sorry, I know that sounds pretty harsh, but that's truly the way I feel because of all this.
On that note, here are some parting thoughts...
-- With enormous power comes enormous responsibility.
-- Those who have the ability to right an injustice also have the responsibility.
-- Just because we have the right to do a thing, doesn't mean we are right in doing it.
-- Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I have to ask; are you a member of the union? If so, like with each election we have, show your disapproval with your vote.
You should campaign to vote out whomever is in power that allowed this if you feel it needs to be righted.
Yes, I am a member. But not a willing member. I only signed up under protest and threat of termination.
I have been an employee for over 25 years. I didn’t even know a union existed until a few years after I was hired and was told then I did not have to join. During those 25 years, there is absolutely nothing the union has done that has convinced me they are deserving of my money. In fact, I have seen plenty that convinces me otherwise.
I have never had an problems with my supervisors or management, I am provided a good safe working environment, and my salary and benefits are all controlled by the legislature. Even today, if the negotiating team agrees to a raise, the final decision still rests with the legislature.
Also, I did try to clean it up from inside. But I found it is really nothing but a “club” where the people are permitted by the big unions to play at politics. Nothing “real” ever happens unless the big unions what it to.
It's just my opinion, but if the Governor, who is the Employer of state employees, who values state employees, believes, and has stated publicly, in making sure state employees get fair wages, good benefits and honest treatment, and those fair wages, good benefits and honest treatment are mandated by Civil Service laws, then why would a state employee need the protection of a union who’s purpose is to negotiate fair wages, good benefits and honest treatment with an employer who doesn’t already do that? It just doesn’t make sense! Unless it has something to do with where most of union dues end up. A mere $4.08 of $75.00 a month stays in the local unions. Where does the remaining $70.92 go? It makes a body wonder!
I don't know where to start.
Washington is not a right to work state so membership can be compelled. I can't figure out how you went that long without becoming a member. Theonly thing I can think of (as I have not researched it) is due to it being a municipality that union membership is somehow not required.Quote:
I have been an employee for over 25 years. I didn’t even know a union existed until a few years after I was hired and was told then I did not have to join.
see some of the answers belowQuote:
During those 25 years, there is absolutely nothing the union has done that has convinced me they are deserving of my money.
QUOTE] I am provided a good safe working environment, and my salary and benefits are all controlled by the legislature.[/QUOTE] Do you think that could because there is a union? Of course you don;t. Read a bit of labor history. Figure out where the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, paid benefits, OSHA and a myriad of other benefits to labor came from.
that is a good thing. Don;t stop. Yes, there are unions that have some problems and it takes the members to clean it up.Quote:
Also, I did try to clean it up from inside.
Do you really believe all the sales pitches the politicians tell you? As soon as a budget crunch came along, what do you think would be cut to ease the pain? I would bet it isn't the gov's pay.Quote:
It's just my opinion, but if the Governor, who is the Employer of state employees, who values state employees, believes, and has stated publicly, in making sure state employees get fair wages, good benefits and honest treatment, and those fair wages, good benefits and honest treatment are mandated by Civil Service laws, then why would a state employee need the protection of a union who’s purpose is to negotiate fair wages, good benefits and honest treatment with an employer who doesn’t already do that? It just doesn’t make sense!
Ah, maybe to the national level of the union? I know that of my $25/ month I pay for union dues, about $2 stays with the local and the rest heads to Washington (DC) to the international office.Quote:
A mere $4.08 of $75.00 a month stays in the local unions. Where does the remaining $70.92 go?
While I will not argue that there has been and still is some poor union leadership and problems such as graft and the like in some unions, you must understand that if there was no need for unions, they would never have been voted in. I know many people that simply cannot negotiate worth a damn. The problem with their jobs is, they make less money than their workmates although they do the same job. Is it fair that somebody that is more aggressive makes more money? The squeaky wheel gets the grease is very appropriate in situations like that. Is it just for an employer demand a worker work in unsafe conditions? Of course not. I have seen many examples of workers being intimidated, coerced, or their job threatened for refusing to undertake unsafe work situations.
These are just a couple of many situations where a union does provide a benefit.
work towards a better union, not the removal of the union. It truly does benefit you much more than you realize.