Bellingham measure seeks union neutrality among city contractors
Initiative 3 on the Nov. 2 ballot in Bellingham protects the right of workers to organize, according to the title of the initiative.
It prevents anyone who receives city funding from using that money to “discourage unionization efforts by that person’s employees or any other employees,” according to the Voters Pamphlet provided to Whatcom County voters from the state Secretary of State’s Office.
Further, the measure requires that any money used for anti-union activities should be accounted for by the organization in a way that shows that money didn’t come from the city.
And it requires the city to investigate complaints, develop an enforcement procedure, and allows the city to cancel contracts in event of a violation.
“A strong labor movement is essential to reducing inequality and maintaining a healthy democracy,” according to a ballot statement written by Peter Pihos, Hannah Fishman and Betsy Pernotto. “When companies who contract with the city use public money in anti-union activities, we are funding this inequity.”
Ballots were mailed Wednesday, Oct. 13, and must be postmarked — not simply mailed — or placed in ballot drop boxes by 8 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 2.
Pro
“We want to make it harder for businesses that contract with the city to spend money on anti-union activities,” volunteer Sage Jones told The Bellingham Herald.
Jones said the city already requires its contractors to agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation, and there should be “no city funds used for union-busting.”
Initiative 3 is endorsed by Whatcom County Jobs With Justice, Imagine No Kages, Whatcom Democratic Socialists of America, Whatcom Peace and Justice Center, Whatcom Human Rights Task Force, Sunrise Bellingham, Bellingham Unity Committee, Riveters Collective, Bellingham Tenants Union, Whatcom Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Con
Dave Onkles of Alabama Hill, who co-wrote the ballot statement against Initiative 3, said he’s not opposed to union membership, but he thinks the measure’s language is coercive.
“What it does do is discourage vendors in particular in bid awards for city contracts,” he told The Herald.
“The net effect would be to decrease the pool of vendors,” said Onkles, who is retired from his career as a builder.
Onkles said it could result in lower pay for employees and increased costs to the city.
“It’s probably well-intentioned. But this is coercive and therefore destructive,” he said.
Other social measures
The initiative is one of four Bellingham voters will face on the general election ballot.
The measures were brought forward by a coalition of local groups called People First Bellingham are seeking renter protections, limits on police technology, neutrality on labor issues from city contractors, and hazard pay and other rights for hourly wage workers, Jones told The Herald.
Council members voted 4-0-1 to place the measures on the ballot at their July 12 meeting. Councilman Michael Lilliquist abstained, and council members Pinky Vargas and Dan Hammill were absent.
But council members and the city’s legal staff said at the meeting that they think the measures won’t survive a court challenge if voters approve them.
Jones disagreed, saying the measures were modeled on successful initiatives in other cities across the country.
At its Oct. 12 meeting, the council voted 6-0 to urge voters to reject them.
If approved, the measures would take effect 10 days after the final election canvass, and City Council members cannot change or amend them for two years after they take effect.
People First Bellingham had raised $71,137 through Oct. 14 in support of the four measures, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission. That includes a $50,000 grant from the nonprofit Group Health Foundation in Seattle.
