|
 |
|
|
|
Points of View: Locked out: House Bill 2769 |
|
|
|
Written On: March/April 20080 |
|
|
|
Written By: Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma |
|
|
|
House Bill 2769, sponsored by Rep. Sharon Nelson, D-Vashon Island, attempts to rectify an inequity in current law that allows some employees to receive unemployment benefits when locked out or on strike, but not others. Currently, employees who are locked out qualify for benefits unless the employer is part of a multi-employer bargaining unit.
Some argue that such lockouts are merely defensive — that in such cases, the lockouts are caused by a strike against a member of a multi-employer bargaining group. But the fact is, these multi-employer lockouts, especially in the grocery industry, are becoming much more aggressive, with a goal to reduce wages and health care costs.
The strongest evidence of this is the 2004 grocer lockout in California that lasted 144 days and caused major losses for both employers and workers. The lockout ended only after the employees conceded to major cuts in wages for entry-level employees and a two-tier heath care system with greatly reduced benefits for new employees. When it comes to sitting down at the bargaining table with the grocery industry, multi-employer groups are fond of saying, “If you go on strike, we won’t see you for two months.”
This aggressive posture reflects an imbalance in power between large corporate employers and their workforce, and is not healthy for working families in our community. On the other hand, grocery unions must also be reasonable. I am therefore open to an amendment that would allow benefits only when the multi-employer bargaining group’s last and final offer seeks major cuts in wages and benefits.
I’m hopeful this bill will help restore economic balance in this industry, promote better labor relations and healthier communities, and end the erosion of wages and benefits.
A Worker’s right to privacy: HB 2383
House Bill 2383, sponsored by Rep. Mike Sells, D-Everett, addresses some important constitutional issues: Do the civil rights of employees end at the employer’s door? Does an employer have the right to force employees to attend meetings where the subject is a discussion of political choice, religious choice, or bargaining choice? Does this not conflict with our freedom of speech and religion, which are foundations of our American democracy?
Nothing in this proposal restricts the right of an employer to hold such meetings. It only protects the rights of an employee to be excused if they so choose. These are civil rights, but apparently, they can be withheld at the workplace. While many employers in our state respect these rights, we are seeing more “forced” meetings hiding behind the veil of company property, as if it’s not on American soil. Our civil liberties are precious in our nation. Should they remain unprotected in the workplace?
|
|
|
|
