by George Taniwaki
I’m a libertarian by nature. (That’s libertarian with a small L, meaning I believe in government transparency and clarity. Please don’t confuse it with Libertarian with a capital L, which I associate with mindless anarchy.) Every two year, I dutifully check for my ballot and voter pamphlet (Washington has voter by mail). The number of items seems to be getting longer, especially voter initiatives.
Here is my method of deciding how to cast my ballot on voter initiatives. First, I start skeptically. Most voter initiatives are funded by political extremists who do not consider the consequences of adopting their pet idea. But I do my online research, checking analysis produced by hopefully reputable and unbiased sources. Ultimately though, I usually vote against them.
This year in Washington, there a really bizarre ballot issue. It is Initiative Measure No. 1501. “Increased Penalties for Crimes Against Vulnerable Individuals”
This measure would increase the penalties for criminal identity theft and civil consumer fraud targeted at seniors or vulnerable individuals; and exempt certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers from public disclosure.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
How could anyone be against this? We want to help seniors, right? Well, it’s not that simple.
A convoluted story
There is a very complex story about this initiative. It involves a union, an antiunion think tank, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Initiative 1501 is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that represents healthcare workers that work in nursing homes or provide in-home care. Washington, like most states, requires certain workers, such as nurses, to have a license in order to provide services to the public. About one-third of all service workers in the U.S. require licenses. In many cases, these workers are also unionized.
Enter the Freedom Foundation. This antiunion policy group is headquartered in Olympia, Washington. It was founded by Bob Williams, who was formerly with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). You may have heard of ALEC; it is a corporate funded lobbying group that writes model legislation (which obviously is designed to further the goals of its corporate clients) which it then provides to state legislators to review. The legislators can then submit the bills for approval into law. The Freedom Foundation provides very similar services.
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Harris v. Quinn that an Illinois state law that allowed the SEIU to collect a representation fee (union dues) from in-home healthcare workers wages was unconstitutional. The reasoning was that the fee violated the First Amendment rights of the workers to not provide financial support for collective bargaining.
After the ruling, the Freedom Foundation complained that the SEIU was not doing enough to inform its members that they did not have to pay the representation fee in order to belong to the union. Though a public records act, it sued the union and the state, won, and started to send communications to members encouraging them to stop paying the fee.
Since a Supreme Court ruling covers the entire U.S., not just Illinois, the SEIU realized that it was very vulnerable to attack by the Freedom Foundation or other antiunion organizations.
Now the initiative makes sense
In Washington, the SEIU proactively sponsored Initiative 1501 as a direct attack against Freedom Foundation. The SEIU wants to avoid having to release the names, addresses, and phone numbers of its members (or having the state reveal these either). Initiative 1501 does this by saying that in-home caregivers are a protected class, like seniors or vulnerable individuals, that the state and the union cannot release personal information about.
After all that research, the story starts to make sense. This is a battle between two parties that a libertarian like me dislikes. But more transparency is better than less. So I will vote no. Sorry seniors and vulnerable individuals, you will have to rely on existing statutes to protect you.