Monday, February 01, 2016

Wait... what? Benton and SB6542

I thought it was kind of weird to get a robo-call from somebody concerning a Benton bill the day after he announced he wasn't running for re-election.  I also thought that I, in the 18th District, would get a call about someone in the 1-7.

It was barely legible.  My hearing ain't all that great, and it was a call out of New York.

It said something about "privacy" and when the time came to say who the "paid for by" showed up, it said something very fast... but I thought to myself, "did that guy say SEIU and Benton in the same line?  Nah.... can't be."

And I forgot all about it.

Then I saw this:



This same kind of thing happened in Oregon last year.

So, I thought I'd better do what I always try to do... actually look up the Bill Digest:
SB 6542 - DIGEST
Requires a requester, before obtaining records containing the names or nonexempt contact information of employees or volunteers from an agency, to swear under oath that he or she will not use the information to obtain information exempt under the public records act for a commercial purpose or to harass, stalk, threaten, or intimidate a person.

Exempts the following from public inspection and copying under the public records act: Information held by a public agency in personnel records, public employment related records, or volunteer rosters, or included in a mailing list of employees or volunteers of a public agency: (1) Family day care providers exempt from licensing requirements as provided in chapter 43.215 RCW (department of early learning); and (2) Language access providers as provided in chapter 41.56 RCW (public employees' collective bargaining).
Wow.  That's down right bizarre.

Then, I looked at the Sponsors:

History of the Bill

as of Monday, February 1, 2016 2:01 PM
 Sponsors:Senators Benton, Pearson, Hargrove, Dansel, Hill, Litzow
 
 2016 REGULAR SESSION
  Jan 25 First reading, referred to Commerce & Labor. (View Original Bill)

This bill makes zero sense.

The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery.

Now, the SEIU isn't particularly interested in seeing members cop a walk:  Who would be if you were making bank off of them?

But the Freedom Foundation has made freeing the people from union enslavement (mandatory membership) their Crusade.

This bill was successful in the all-democrat legislature in Oregon.  Clearly, they believe it would be successful here in Washington as well.

But I simply cannot understand why the sponsors... all GOP except for relatively conservative democrat Hargrove, think this is somehow a good idea?

And this goes to the heart of the matter:  Why bother to vote GOP when, under GOP control, these same senators have done far too much of this kind of crap?

What's the point?

1 comment:

Lew Waters said...

Back in 2010, Herrera excused her support of HB 1329 claiming Benton voted for it too.

Benton excused it then with the claim of, "HB1329 was mandatory unionization. Recognizing that their small numbers (super minority) could not stop the bill, both Benton and Zarelli successfully fought for amendments to SHB 1329 that would make it non-mandatory, allow for religious objection and also turn it into a study bill. That gives them another year to try to stop it."

However, that does not explain the rest.

It boggles my mind that he supported any, especially this latest one.