Moderator: Welcome to Capitol Chat, our guest today is Greg Devereux, executive director of the largest state workers union, the Washington Federation of State Employees. To start off, why don’t you tell us a little about your own background, and what your role in the federation is. He's joined today by Tim Welch, Director of Public Affairs for the union.

Devereux: I've been executive director of federation for the past ten years. It's the largest state employee union in the state, representing 39,000 employees. My role is to oversee 65 staff members in five offices around the state, to follow representation issues, legislative issues and political issues, and also to organize workers in the future.

Devereux

Welch

Moderator: Under the 2002 Personnel System Reform Act, unions may form closed shops, in which every worker pays the union, and bargain with the governor for pay and benefits, something they had never been able to do before. The state may contract some state worker jobs to the private sector under the same act.

The federation formed several new bargaining units as it approached negotiations this summer, and when an agreement was reached in September, it included the first cost of living increase for state workers since 2001. It also included union security clauses, requiring union-represented workers to pay dues, a fact many nonunion workers say they did not know until after the vote on the contract was over.

Clarence, Lacey: With all the questions that have arrived with the so-called unfair voting of the ratification of the contract, if the union is so confident that they will come out as winners, why not pacify the non-union members with another vote? This time have it actually posted so folks can know about it?

Devereux: In these situations you typically negotiate a contract and have a vote and we feel that's what we did. People were notified the best we could. Every two years folks do have an opportunity to vote on contracts. Iin the past there could be union shop votes; those aren't allowed any more, we can't close a particular work site to just union members now. The only way to do it is through union security negotiations. If employeees are unsatisified they can exercise the right to vote every two years.

James, Bothell: What plan do you have to remedy the ill will generated by the lack of notice to non-members of the union shop election?

Devereux: I don't know how much ill will there is. I know some didn't feel they were notified and we would never want it to happen like that again. The union and management felt there was too little time to get info out, so in the future hopefully we can negotiate sooner and we advocate maintaining union security in the future. And hopefully we'll have better communication in future so that people know they are voting on union security. I think the first vote is always the hardest because they are not used to this process.

Moderator: What was the old process, why aren't people used to this?

Devereux: If you would vote on a particular unit for representation and people joined voluntarily, if you wanted a union shop then you could have a separate election. In the future you can't have such elections. To have union shops, the only way to do it is through negotiations. That's a big change in the law.

Moderator: What's the difference between what you would call a closed shop and a bargaining unit that has a union contract with a security clause?

Devereux: In a closed shop, what is known as a closed shop, you have to be a union member absolutely and that has been prohibited for decades. In a bargaining unit union shop that we're talking about, you can be a union member or a fair share fee-payer. So you have a choice between those two and that has always been deemed legal in our system.

Kathy, Olympia: There has been alot of fervor about what unions told employees, what employees thought would happen etc. but at this point, what is it you would want all state employees to know about a union's role in the post-July 1 personnel world?

Devereux: I think the union's role has always been important and will be more important in the future. In the past it hasn't been as obvious, the legislative role we play in securing wage and benefit increases. In the future it will be more transparent in the bargaining process, and it's important for employees to pay attention to keep informed on that process and it will be important for us to communicate what's going on in bargaining and getting that information out to people. That's our role and we'll do our best.

Brian, Olympia: Now that you have more members (with union shop requirements) are you going to reduce the dues each memeber must pay?

Devereux: That's a question we've heard in a number of meetings and that's a question for our members at a convention. Members set dues rates. At a convention. they may look at finances and say they want to lower or raise it, any number of things, and that's up to them. About 500 people at a convention set that rate.

Moderator: How does an employee get to the convention?

Devereux: They are elected from their local union to the convention directly. This is such a period of change we don't know exactly what finances will come in and what we'll need for representation and lobbying, and that all has to shake out first, and if there was hypothetically a big surplous, members may lower dues. It's a very democratic union in that fashion.

Dan, Olympia: If state employees who are required to join your union want to change policies or union managment, how would they do that?

Devereux: In terms of policies there are several routes, we have quarterly policy committee meetings where you can bring resolutions forward to make internal or external change in the union. We have a bifurcated system running the union where elected members are the officers and selected workers are selected by the executive board of the council (like me and Tim) and if they are satisfied with the members then they keep them and if they are not, employees can talk to the board and potentially have union workers removed if they aren't satisfied. So there are several different ways to change policies or personnel who run daily operations.

We expect far more participation. I don't know how many times I've heard from non-members who say that they intend to participate now. We expect more participation and more resolutions -- if people pay for something, they expect value for it and it makes the whole union very exciting. I believe some of the folks whoo are the most fervent spokespeople on decertification I think someday will be the most active union folks, because they are already activists, and frequently they will go through the process of understanding decertification about where the money goes and they become incredible activisits for the union. I've seen that many times before.

Debbie, Chewelah: You referred to employees who did not agree with the contract as the "Axis of Evil" on the WFSE website. It further stated that those that opposed the contract were anti-family and anti-government and that we were being funded by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Do you think we are a bunch of brainless sheep who cannot form our own opinions? And do you think that name calling is fair just because we do not think the same way you do? Is there any wonder why so many state employees are upset when we are treated this way?

Devereux: Her comment and many like it have been misinterpreted often. The axis of evil comment wasn't calling state employees an axis, but three organizatiosn that are anti-worker: The Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the Building Industry Association of Washington, and the National Right-to-Work Legal Defense Foundation. Those three organizations, part of their tenets of existence are to destroy unions, and so that's where the axis of evil comment came from. Maybe that wasn't the best choice of words, but those organizations would just as soon eliminate unions altogether, and since the unions are why we have the first pay and benefit increase in a long time, I think there's a great benefit to having unions.

I have great respect for state employees whether in a union or not and we would never call state employees part of an axis of evil, but those three organizations we believe don't have the employees' best interests in mind.

Doug, Olympia: First, congratulations on securing the statewide contract! My question concerns employees who just don't get it: Why there is a need to eliminate freeloading, what union security really means in a hostile environment, and the weak bargaining power of unions in states where there is no agency fee provision or which are unfortunate to live in a "right-to-work" (for less) environment. What can the union do to protect those unionists who understand this against those without a clue who are being used by extremist wingnut groups like the EFF and the Right-to-Work Committee?

Devereux: I think it comes down to communication. In general we really have to get out there in the next two years and demonstrate to state workers, espcially those who haven't paid in the past, what the value of a union is and what collective bargaining does. They need to see the legislative process where any number of groups in our ranks secure some legislative improvements.

Our job is to show all the ways the union touches their lives every day. It's analogous to the fight about government. If in general a public citizen knew how many times government touched their lives they wouldn't be as anti-tax as before. If employees realized how often the union touches their lives, they wouldn't be anti-union.

Chris, Olympia: If the union is so wonderful and has so much to offer why do you have to force people to join?

Devereux: Again, if you look at this closely, no one is being forced to join. As I mentioned before, closed shops are illegal in the United States. Folks for the first time under this contract, they can choose to join or pay a representaiton fee, and that fee pays for both collective bargaining and all the other processes that we are involved in that benefit state employees. Boards we represent, legislative processes are a different kind of representation but still are representation. I think if we can get out there and communicate that, the union will speak for itself.

Tom, Lacey: The union claims it needs at least 1.1 percent of our salary to cover the expenses of negotiating and managing the contract. This is the so called "fair share" amount. By my estimate the union will get over $30 million from state employees covered by the contract. How can the union justify such an amount when the costs of negotiating were less than $5 million?

Devereux: I don't where the $30 million he referenced comes from. That number is a bizarre figure. At best, if every single individual in our bargaining units paid dues, not a fee, I think our additional revenue would be $6 million. And that won't happen, many people will choose to pay fees instead. All told in bargaining we spent $3 million to $4 million and there were a lot of ancilliary costs, campaign costs at the same time. We actually haven't seen any revenue yet, the contract isn't in effect until July 1. A lot of what we did last year was on borrowed money that we have to pay back.

Susan, Tumwater: For those that you will grant religious accommodation to, and who will be paying a non-association fee -- exactly what is the name of the scholarship that is being awarded out of the "WFSE Scholarship Fund" which you have designated as the option to divert the dues? Who controls the award process? Who is eligible to apply? When are the scholarships awarded? What are the dollar values of the scholarships?

Welch: One scholorship is the Norm Schut Scholarship and there are three awards from that every year for $1,000 each. The Neville B. Crippen grant in aid awards, those are quarterly at various monetary levels between $100 and $200 to defer the costs of education for members. The determination is made by a three person scholarship committee that includes a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, a member of the commmunity and an active union member, and they meet quarterly for the grant awards and anually for the Schut awards. The Schut awards is availble to members and their children and the Crippen is available to members. They can call or go to www.wfse.org for more details.

Devereux: For years we've been doing scholarships for members and their children. In this process we may choose also to donate some of that money -- people may be able to choose the money go to charities instead of scholarships in the future. It's something we are looking at.

Moderator: Could you explain what a non-association status is?

Devereux: In the past it's meant someone who because of tenets of religion didn't feel they could join a labor union and they would communicate that in a letter. In the past we required verification for their church and if that was verified they were granted that status and their money was used strictly for scholarships and not any other part of union.

John, Lacey: Given widespread, proven, union violations of campaign spending laws, how will you assure, absolutely, that member dues will not be spent on candidates or issues with which individual members might personally disagree?

Devereux: I don't know what he's talking about regarding "widespread proven allegations." Myself or any individual in the union doesn't get to choose where the money is spent in the political realm. There is a democratic process called an endorsement conference to endorse candidates with a thorough discussion of who should be endorsed, and that carries with it contributions from the union.

Frequently many of the incumbents are involved in the process and there are many new people we don't have a track record of, so our Legislature people go out and interview candidates and we have an incredibly labor-intensive process whereby in the area or region we gather federation retirees, staff and active members to interview the new candidates and decide whether or not to endorse. And it is really contingent on answers by the candidate and it's a very democratic process and of course members may endorse someone others object to, which is bound to happen in an organization of 39,000 members.

Moderator: How did the federation political involvement in the last election pay off for state employees last year?

Devereux: The goal always is to elect legislators and a governor who are worker-friendly in many ways. I'm not sure, "pay-off" sounds a little strong, they never satisfy you as much as you would like, but we are the most successful union in terms of endorsing candidates and individuals. We don't care about a "D" or "R" behind their name, we endorse people we feel will be supportive of workers issues. The first time we passed collective bargaining there were 17 Republicans who signed the bill.

If Rossi had said in the interview process that he endorses collective bargaining and he would honor contracts for state employees, the endorsement may have been different. We have a balanced approach in endorsing people who support our issues. We wanted pension improvements and it didn't happen because of deficits. There were a number of things we were able to accomplish and I'm sure that's becuase there are majorities in both houses who are supportive of our issues. In any race you try to elect someone supportive of your issues.

Mary, Kettle Falls: WAC 356-42-042 (1) states: "To provide that union shop elections are truly representative of the desires of the employees and that all employees eligible to vote have every opportunity to do so, employee participation in these elections will be encouraged to the greatest extent possible." (5) states: "At least ten days prior to the scheduled date {of election}, the director or designee will distribute a notice of election for posting in the work areas of affected employees..." non-union state employees were not properly notified of their right to vote on the contract. Many of us feel it's because you knew we would reject it due to the forced union fees. How do you respond to this?

Devereux: First, the union shop provision she is quoting is no longer in affect and will no longer be in affect. I don't think it serves us in any way to not notify people and have a firestorm afterward. I think when you notify and educate people you are in a much stronger position than the opposite. We did everything in our power in the ten days we had to get the word out to folks so they would understand and be educated. We didn't want them afterward yelling and screaming about union security.

Mary, Marysville: Where is my rebate?

Devereux: Currently we have a process where state employees have a monthly rebate tied to the Hudson Supreme Court case. This year employees had to apply for the rebate and would get it on a monthly basis. Maybe she didn't apply properly. This year people can get monthly Hudson rebates, in the future they won't. We will subtract the same amount from representation fee payers so they will get lower fees instead of money back. We have always had a rebate proram in the past, but now it changes because of the law and the representation fees are lower than the union dues and accomplish the same thing.

Moderator: You disclaimed some bargaining units at WSU and the Healthcare Authority, but units fell short at Labor and Industries and at Social and Health Services and now at Employement Security. Do you consider these victories?

Devereux: I don't think there's any question they are victories, but it's probably too strong a term. I think in order to have decertifications they had to have 30 percent of the unit showing interest, which they couldn't get, and I think it's a reflection that workers understand underneath all of this that there's a need for the union and that it provides a valuable service.

We've had many union shops where everyone has had to pay and some didn't want to be in the union. We understand that. 39,000 is a big village, but I think 14,000 people in three bargainiang units where they were not able to get requisite showing of interest, I think that is a statement made by those employees. And I think if we do our job even better, which we will, I think they will have even less interest in decertifying in the future.

Moderator: I think that's about all the questions we've got. Any closing thoughts?

Devereux: I guess the one thing I would say is that this is massive change. The level of change in state government is incredible and I think management and the union both knew that but no one had done it before. So this is going to have tremendous repercussions in the long term. I think everyone is feeling their way. Yesterday there were complaints about the ratification process and now the software plan and I think with any process like this there will be glitches, but I think it's a testament that there were so few. I think the benefits to state emploees far outway the problem areas that have arisen along the way.