This disappointing bill may receive a floor vote. House Bill 2091 is a favor to unions at the expense of workers and taxpayers. It violates employee privacy and makes it easier to keep public employees in the dark about their right to join — or not join — a union. Under the proposal, even more public employers will be required to hand over employees’ personal contact information to union representatives.
State law, RCW 41.80, already requires certain public employers (cities, counties, subdivisions, school districts and the state’s public institutions of higher education) to be used as a union data service. HB 2091 broadens the law, pulling in more public employers (state agencies, the state Attorney General’s Office, etc.).
Personal contact information that is required to be transmitted on a recurring schedule includes an employee’s name, work and personal emails, cell, work and home phone numbers, home addresses, date of hire, job title, rate of pay and work site. This is not a one-time compliance task. Even if the data exists, the mandate is a recurring export, verification and delivery obligation that consumes staff time and taxpayer money.
A government-built advantage for one side
No other advocacy group — left or right — can require a public employer to deliver curated employee contact lists of personal information, and they shouldn’t. If outside organizations want comprehensive, routinely updated contact lists of public employees, they need to do the hard work — reach people individually, earn trust and build voluntary, opt-in lists over time.
Current law has union-friendly lawmakers making public employers a union information gatherer and distributor, using taxpayer resources to do work unions would otherwise have to do themselves. That should trouble anyone who believes in neutrality. Private employers would be rightly skewered for giving employee contact data to an advocacy group or another business. Government employers shouldn’t be required to give away that same personal information.
Supporters say this is harmless and argue that being given personal information is necessary for unions to do their jobs, but it’s not. Lawmakers also need to remember that unions exist to advance the interests of unions. They are not neutral messengers for individual workers, especially when it comes to the choice to join or not join. Regarding their duty of representation, they can contact workers through work channels.
When public employers serve as the conduit for union contact information, the message about worker choice is inevitably clouded. Employees may not clearly understand that union membership is optional, or they may feel pressured when contacted with the authority of their employer. Add to this that public employers also collect dues for unions. Public employers should be letting workers know of their right to join or not join a union, not giving their information to unions and staying silent on the issue.
Once data leaves the employer, employees lose control over how often they’re contacted and through which channels. If unions want to communicate with workers, they should do what everyone else does and ask employees directly, use available work channels and build opt-in lists.
Curated lists of personal contact information shouldn’t be handed to unions, advocacy groups or anyone else. Workers’ personal information belongs to them, not to employers or the state. The Legislature should rethink RCW 41.80, not double down on bad law.
