Gov. Chris Gregoire and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate announced this morning that they will no longer consider taking action on a worker privacy proposal because of an e-mail that linked action on the bills to campaign contributions
Senate Bill 5446, and House Bill 1528, known as “the Worker Privacy Act,” would prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to attend a meeting, or listen to, respond to, or participate in any communication relating to political, labor or religious matters. The proposal requires an employer to post a notice of employee rights in a conspicuous place accessible to the employees at the employer’s place of business.
Plus they’ve called the cops! Seriously. I’m not kidding.
Here is the State Patrol’s statement:
The Washington State Patrol has received a request to look into potential criminal allegations surrounding communications pertaining to SB 5446 and HB 1528 – Worker Privacy Act.
As with any on-going investigation, no evidence or further information will be released at this time.
The WSP will be working hand in hand with prosecutors (We don’t know who may/may not have jurisdiction yet.) as we progress.
We just received the request and little is known at this time.
The WSP is taking this very seriously as we do with any potential criminal allegations and will work closely with prosecutors to determine a course of action.
Well that’s all clear as mud. Nothing against the state patrol, of course, they gotta do what they gotta do.
I’m not even going to pretend to speculate. Bizarre.
It most likely has to do with your union thugs. Bet you’ll still try to implicate the BIAW, won’t you?
“I’m not even going to pretend to speculate. Bizarre.”
Why not? This isn’t a news site or legit news organization. It’s a blog. Speculation is what you do all the time, everyday, every post….
I’ll speculate. Someone got a little brash with the influence peddling in Oly and got caught. Whomever it is is going to be thrown the the wolves…
Why isn’t the State patrol “investigating” everything the BIAW has done since 2002?
@1 Unions are “thugs” for wanting to make it illegal for employers to force workers to sit through political and religious indoctrination as a condition of continued employment? Sounds to me like it’s the employers who are the thugs in this situation.
God I hope it is one of the opponents of the bill who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Of course, employers shouldn’t be allowed to force workers to sit through political and religious indoctrination. The question is, what is the appropriate legal remedy? Criminal prosecution? Civil penalties? Monetary damages?
Regardless, it’s safe to say that employers will retaliate against any worker who complains under this law. The employer will find some excuse to fire the complaining employee, and undoubtedly will put the employee on a secret employer “blacklist” so the employee can’t get work elsewhere.
I’m against socialism. I don’t think taxpayers should support people who can’t work because they’ve been fired and blacklisted for reporting an employer’s criminal conduct to authorities. That should be the employer’s responsibility.
Therefore, I propose that if an employer forces an employee to sit through political or religious indoctrination, the employer should be presumed to have impaired the employee’s future employment prospects, and should be required to provide, as liquidated damages, the following support:
1) Full wages and health benefits for any period of time the employee is unemployed, until the employee reaches full Social Security benefits retirement age;
2) Compensation, at 100% equivalency, for reduced future pension and Social Security benefits resulting from such periods of unemployment;
3) Reimbursement of all attorney fees and other legal costs incurred by the employee in connection with enforcing the employee’s rights under this law;
4) These financial obligations cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, and if for any reason they are not paid, the employer’s balls will be cut off and held in escrow in a jar of formaldehyde until payment is made.
If these measures seem harsh, remember, they are necessary to prevent socialism.
I am getting sick and tired of people who probably enjoy the fruits of what unions fought for, whether they are a member or not, but sat idly by and probably even encouraged Conservative Attacks on them, calling unions a bunch of thugs. My mother was a member of the UFCW when she worked at Safeway for over 30 years, and has the pension to show for it. Also, John425, did you hear what the Captain of US Airways Flight 1549 said before Congress, the attacks on airline members pensions made in the wake of the 9/11 bankruptcies of the airlines. A time when nobody was allowed to protest anything for fear of being un-American. I am beginning to think maybe the airlines should apply to Railroad Retirement, it does o.k, a little better than Social Security, and has been around as long as Social Security. The airlines are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act or the NLRB, they are covered by an older law, the Railway Labor Act, passed during the Coolidge era, and extended to Airline Employees during the Roosevelt Administration. The RLA does not prevent strikes, but far fewer, and earlier Government Intervention.
Now there is an NTSB inquiry going on over the Metrolink crash in LA a few months ago. Half the right wing trolls on this blog would not even care unless terrorism was involved, since the case settles on the failure of the engineer to see a Red Warning Signal, because he was texting to a railfan(I don’t do that myself, the engineer has plenty to worry about, especially on a commuter train). The Union’s response is not really to defend the late engineers actions, but the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen are asking for a second person in the cab to make sure engineers don’t ignore the signals. It is a safety issue, not just a membership enhancement issue, but you Union Haters only see the bad.
Another case of an engineer at a derailment that did his job, and seized the initiative. A collision between a MARC Commuter Train and Amtrak’s Capitol Limited, near Silver Spring, Maryland in 1996. The Amtrak Engineer survived to explain why he upped the throttle to move faster as the collision approached. At the time, Amtrak trains were moving a lot of mail and express, and some of those cars were up front behind the Locomotives. The engineer was trying to minimize the deaths in the collision as best he can, hoping the cab-car of the commuter train would hit the baggage car,(The Capitol was in the middle of switching tracks, the MARC train was supposed to be holding), but it was too late and it struck the lead locomotive at an angle where it hit the fuel tank. Amtrak was in the middle of changing from the GM-EMD F40 to the GE Genesis model, the latter had shielded fuel tanks.
@7 Shielded fuel tanks would never happen without gummint regulation because they cost money. It’s hard to feel sorry for anti-regulation wingnuts who get turned into Crispy Critters by exploding fuel tanks, but I suppose we should anyway, as a political correctness thing. Man, charred human corpses sure are a sickening thing to look at.
@7 (continued) Speaking of terrorism, some health insurance is Financial Terrorism, and some health insurers should be considered Terrorists. For details, see this article:
http://www.time.com/time/natio.....49,00.html