Elizabeth Hovde of the Washington Policy Center believes there is no need for a law that invades worker privacy in this way

Elizabeth Hovde
Washington Policy Center

A bill that would require public employees’ private information to be shared by his or her employer has passed the state’s House of Representatives and the necessary committees to seek full Senate consideration in the Washington state Legislature. House Bill 1200 should be ignored or receive swift rejection.

The bill would require public employers to provide employees’ personal information to exclusive bargaining representatives at regular intervals. If the employer has the information in the employer’s records, the bill says that the information provided must include: 

• the employee’s name and date of hire; 
• the employee’s contact information, including cellular, home, and work telephone numbers; work and the most up-to-date personal email addresses; and the employee’s home address or personal mailing address; and 
• employment information, including the employee’s job title, salary or rate of pay, and work site location or duty station. 

If an employer fails to provide an employee’s personal information, the exclusive bargaining representative may bring a court action to enforce compliance and the court may order the employer (that would be taxpayers) to pay costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the exclusive bargaining representative. 

This invasion of privacy isn’t OK. Not all workers want to be contacted whenever and however a union wants to contact them, but this legislation might give them no choice about that or about what kind of personal, not just work, information was given. 

Even if unions don’t believe they already have sufficient access to workers (they do), a worker should be able to decide if he or she wants personal information given to a larger audience. Public employers already let new employees know how to access union representation, and if they want more information from a union they can seek it out. Workers themselves, of course, can always share their personal information. 

The bill is unnecessary and kinda creepy. Public employers have extensive access to employee information. It’s no wonder law enforcement officers have strong privacy concerns with the bill. Teachers might, too. And anyone who has been a union-represented employee but who doesn’t always agree with a union knows that life can get uncomfortable if you’re seen as someone who opposes a union’s workplace or political ideas.

There is no need for a law that invades worker privacy in this way. Let’s hope Senate leaders steer clear of the favor for unions.

Elizabeth Hovde is a policy analyst and the director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.

---

Also read:

• 
  Letter: When headlines gaslight the public
  Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi argues that emotionally charged immigration headlines blur legal distinctions and mislead the public rather than inform it.
• 
  Opinion: California’s unemployment debt crisis mirrors Washington’s Employment Security Department failures
  Mark Harmsworth compares California’s growing unemployment insurance debt with Washington’s Employment Security Department failures and argues both states must reform or risk continued economic harm.
• 
  Opinion: Hard work is being done to try to trade one bad health care system for another
  Elizabeth New (Hovde) cautions that efforts to create a universal, taxpayer-financed health care system in Washington risk replacing existing problems with new challenges tied to cost, access, and centralized control.
• 
  Opinion: The progressive attack on Washington’s sheriffs
  Nancy Churchill argues that proposed legislation would shift power over county sheriffs away from voters and concentrate control within state government.
• 
  Letter: Is Secretary of State Hobbs really JUST protecting your voter information?
  Camas resident Rick Vermeers questions the Washington secretary of state’s refusal to provide voter roll data to the U.S. Department of Justice and raises concerns about voter list transparency and compliance with federal law.