Elizabeth Hovde believes the state-union partnership helps keep public workers in the dark about their rights

Elizabeth Hovde
Washington Policy Center

It’s legislative season in Washington state, a time lawmakers can put policies and practices that need to be fixed into focus. One long overdue conversation is about the state’s role in how easy or difficult it is for some Washington state employees to exercise their First Amendment rights, as clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018. 

In Janus v. AFSCME, the court decided that government workers who choose not to join a union can’t be required to pay union fees or dues as a condition of working in public service. Since the ruling, public-sector-union membership has declined, despite an increase in public employment.

As an Illinois social worker and the plaintiff in the case, Mark Janus, said of the ruling that bears his name, “I’m thrilled that the Supreme Court has restored not only my First Amendment rights but the rights of millions of other government workers across the country. So many of us have been forced to pay for political speech and policy positions with which we disagree just so we can keep our jobs. This is a victory for all of us. The right to say ‘no’ to a union is just as important as the right to say ‘yes.’ Finally, our rights have been restored.”

Some public workers in Washington state are still not aware that they don’t have to give a portion of their earnings to a union with which they disagree. That’s not a huge surprise. Public employee unions in the state aren’t generous with information about this workplace right. Instead, they make it difficult for employees to opt out. A public employee can, therefore, be forced to pay union dues despite the Janus ruling.

The state doesn’t offer good information about Janus rights, either, even on a Washington state Department of Labor and Industries web page that is supposedly devoted to workers’ rights. Not only does the state make it difficult to find neutral information about this important workplace right, it distorts the question of whether union dues are required or optional by playing the role of dues collector for unions. 

This state-union partnership helps keep public workers in the dark about their rights. Washington state lawmakers should remove the state from its union-dues-collection role. 

Other states are working on ways to ensure that workers’ First Amendment rights are respected. The Evergreen state needs to join them. Public employees should pay union dues just as they do other personal bills, and the state should limit itself to protecting a public employee’s right to join or not join a union. 

Read more about this state solution in a policy paper I wrote titled, “Washington state should stop collecting dues for unions and help protect worker rights instead.”

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:

• 
  POLL: Do the proposed changes to the Clark County Council’s Rules of Procedure suggest the council lacked authority in 2025?
  A new reader poll asks whether proposed changes to the Clark County Council’s Rules of Procedure indicate the council lacked clear authority during a 2025 board removal.
• 
  Letter: ‘HSD needs to give a detailed line-item accounting of where the last levy went, and of how they plan to use this one’
  Randall Schultz-Rathbun urges Hockinson School District to provide detailed, transparent accounting of past and proposed levy spending before asking voters for additional funds.
• 
  Letter: Interstate Bridge Replacement’s Park & Ride insanity
  Bob Ortblad criticizes the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s proposed Park & Ride garages, arguing the costs are excessive and unlikely to receive federal funding.
• 
  Opinion: Vancouver councilors responsible for stoking irrational fears in the community
  Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance sharply criticizes a Vancouver City Council declaration on immigration enforcement, arguing it fuels fear, undermines law enforcement, and lacks supporting evidence.
• 
  Opinion: Washington should stop shielding domestic abusers and sexual offenders from deportation
  Vancouver attorney Angus Lee argues Washington law improperly shields convicted domestic abusers, sexual offenders, and drunk drivers from deportation and urges lawmakers to change it.