Why Didn't the King County Labor Council just Endorse 1A AND 1B?

The King County Labor Council only endorsed measure 1B even though, of course, there are many union members in 1A.  This had seemed a mystery to me because if both 1A and1B have union members, why not support both?  Well, it seems there may be a rift between some unions over that sole endorsement and here's a letter asking the KC Labor Council to rescind it.

Dear MLKCLC Affiliates and Fellow Members:

On behalf of our IBEW 46's 4,700 members, we’re writing to ask the King County Labor Council to rescind its sole endorsement of City Hall’s Prop 1B. IBEW Local 46 endorsed Prop 1A because it was crafted by Union sisters and brothers and because it would help more of our members with their childcare needs than 1B.

As you may recall, earlier this year the Council’s vote on endorsing Prop 1A was just 0.25% short of the 67% required for endorsement, meaning that more than 66% of the delegates supported endorsing Proposition 1A. We believe that new information just now coming to light compels a revote.

More than 70% of Prop 1B’s funding comes from anti-labor forces: At the time of the vote to endorse Proposition 1B, that campaign had not declared significant financial contributions. As election day now approaches, checks for $100,000 from ultra-wealthy conservatives are flooding in to Prop 1B. As of today, 72% of Prop 1B’s campaign coffers are filled by wealthy individuals and corporations who have a record of funding anti-labor Republicans, education reformers, opposing minimum wage hikes, and blocking tax reform. These are the people who funded campaigns against the Seatac Initiative and Initiative 1098, the high earners income tax. They funded the charter schools initiative (I-1240) and PACs to privatize public schools and bust teachers’ unions.

Prop 1B’s claims about Prop 1A’s cuts to city services and jobs were wildly exaggerated scare tactics: Leading up to the Council’s vote, Prop 1B campaign members told city employee unions that jobs would be lost, services cut, if Prop 1A passed. This claim has since been called into question by numerous media outlets and experts as “speculation” (Q13 News), “obfuscation” (Publicola), and a “gaping discrepancy” (Crosscut). Even the Mayor’s political appointee to the Budget office admits his numbers are “open to interpretation” (Stranger).

In light of this new information, we believe it is imperative that the King County Labor Council call for a revote on endorsements. If we had this information at the time of the original endorsement we believe Prop 1A would have been easily endorsed by the delegates.

Nicole Grant
Executive Director
Certified Electrical Workers of WA

That's an interesting tactic to consider for future reference.  Get your endorsements in BEFORE you get real money (from whoever gives it to you whether or not the alignment between your endorsers and your contributors lines up).


Jordan said…
What else would you expect from Burgess and Murray?

Burgess made sure union discussions were held behind closed doors. Then, costs related to 1A were considered "confidential" and there was a leak to the Seattle Times. This allowed for a distortion of costs.

Seattle Public School Board was kept in the dark until the League of Education voters launched a campaign for school board support.

This entire intiative has a stink and it started from the head of the fish.
Transparency Please said…
The 1B campaign is $174k in debt. Who will fund the remaining costs of this campaign? Can we expect to see Bill Gates jump in?
I think there was a lot said and done behind closed doors on 1B.

I note that over at Crosscut they say the negotiations between 1B and 1A broke down because of the unions. And yet not a single person who had BEEN in the room can confirm that.

I find it interesting when this blog gets criticized for our reporting when the Times, Crosscut, Publicola, etc. all have their own particular skew.
One thing, though, on this story.

I had perceived that KC Labor Council would vote mostly for 1B. Now, with this obvious dissent, I'm not so sure.
Transparency Please said…
I suspect MLK Labor gave their endorsement before they were aware of 1B's funders.

1B didn't start fundraising until after many endorsements were obtained.
Transparency Please said…
1B kept $150 in their campaign account until AFTER endorsements were obtained. This WAS a red flag because 1B is of major importance to Burgess and Murray.

Anonymous said…
Welcome to "Grassroots Democracy" Seattle Style - Jonathan Knapp of Seattle Education Association tried the same garbage.

"Leadership of Seattle Education Association Pushing Ed Murray's Top Heavy Pre-K
On Friday 12 Sept. 2014, at appx. 2:18, SEA President Jonathan Knapp sent out the agenda for the SEA monthly meeting aka Representative Assembly (RA), on Monday, 15 Sept. at 5:00 p.m.

In the agenda was a New Business Item (NBI) requesting that the SEA endorse Mayor Murray's Pre-K proposal.

Below the +++++ is the text of the leaflet I distributed outside the meeting on Monday, before the meeting began. The text is missing screen shots of 2 tables from a 200+ page consultant report. The first table listed 27 Administrator jobs, 22 of them paying over $100,000 a year, 4 paying over $90.000 a year.

Apparently the NBI was defeated by the RA on Monday, 15 Sept. 2014"


Transparency Please said…

Did Knapp ask membership to endorse 1A?

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Weirdness in Seattle Public Schools Abounds and Astounds

Anaylsis of Seattle School Board Decision to Bring "Student Outcome Focused Governance"