Shielding government unions from post-Janus refund lawsuits isn’t the only page Washington lawmakers are taking from California’s legislative playbook.  Also included in HB 1575 (SB 5623 is the Senate companion bill) is a requirement that public employers “rely on information provided by the exclusive bargaining representative regarding the authorization and revocation of [union] deductions.”

What this means is employers would not be allowed to respond to an employee’s request to quit paying their government union. Such directives could only come from the union.  If the worker tells their employer they want to exercise their Janus rights and stop their union deductions, it means nothing until their union gives the green light.  If the union says the deductions have not been properly revoked, it’s up to the worker to figure out how to take on the union so they can keep their own money. 

Revoking that authorization is its own messy battle.  And the language of HB 1575/SB 5623 makes clear that workers are limited to exercising their Janus rights only “in accordance with the terms and conditions of the authorization.”  This means any authorization workers signed that included fine print at the bottom locking them into paying the union for a specified amount of time, and restricting when they can revoke that authorization, takes precedence over any of those pesky Janus rights.

This clearly is meant to reinforce government unions’ use of misleading authorization cards well before the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus. 

In anticipation of a decision in favor of worker choice (and against the forced financial support of unions), government unions launched a large scale effort to convince public workers to sign membership renewal cards.  The cards typically feature eye-catching graphics trumpeting support for union solidarity—100% Union Proud, Union Membership Equals Fair Pay, I Stand United Because We Are Stronger Together. 

Less eye-catching is the fine print at the bottom locking workers into paying the union for at least one year (and forever unless they jump through hoops to opt-out each year), regardless of Janus.  A worker’s signature effectively forfeits their Janus rights by committing to have a portion of their paycheck sent to the union into perpetuity, unless and until the worker takes the proactive step to affirmatively opt-out each and every year (in writing to both the employer and the union), the option for which is a very limited window of time, usually just ten to fifteen days each year.

It’s hard to believe, but the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Janus ruling giving workers the constitutional right to choose to not pay a government union means nothing to those who unwittingly forfeited that right because they didn’t read, or fully understand, the legalese in the fine print of an authorization card they signed. Many public workers who have tried to free themselves from their union now complain they had no idea they had signed away their rights.  HB 1575/SB 5623 makes clear there is no sympathy for those workers.

SB 5169 is another bill following in California’s footsteps.  The bill would force public employers (and any state contractors they hire) to remain “neutral” on union membership.  According to the bill, examples of a public employer or state contractor not maintaining neutrality (and violating the law) “are if it distributes literature, letters, emails, or posting to employees regarding the exercise of the [collective bargaining] rights guaranteed by this chapter.” 

This means an employer could be violating the law if they simply informed employees of their Janus rights to not pay the union.  Like California, the only public employer communications to workers that would not be considered a violation of the neutrality mandate are those approved by the government union. And it’s pretty clear those unions want to keep those Janus rights as hidden and inaccessible as possible.