Want your personal contact information shared with people? A lot of us don’t. In fact, before sharing someone’s contact information, etiquette demands that we get permission before doing so or we simply give the person being sought the contact information of the person hoping to get in touch with him or her. 

To heck with that when it comes to unions wanting the personal information of employees within their spheres of influence. House Bill 1200 and Senate Bill 5273 would require public employers to provide employees' personal information to exclusive bargaining representatives at regular intervals. The House bill has made it through the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards with a “do pass” recommendation and it is moving along in the process.

Not all workers want to be contacted whenever a union wants to contact them, but this legislation might give them no choice about that or about what kind of personal, not just work, information was given. 

The bill says that if the employer has it, the following information about an employee must be provided: 

• the employee's name and date of hire; 

• the employee's contact information, including cellular, home, and work telephone numbers; work and the most up-to-date personal email addresses; and the employee’s home address or personal mailing address; and 

• employment information, including the employee's job title, salary or rate of pay, and work site location or duty station. 

The requirement applies to employers subject to the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA), school district employers, community and technical Colleges, and Western Washington University, Central Washington University, Eastern Washington University and The Evergreen State College. If an employer fails to provide employees' personal information, the exclusive bargaining representative may bring a court action to enforce compliance and the court may order the employer to pay costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the exclusive bargaining representative. 

People supportive of this oversharing bill say that providing public employees’ information is essential for union representation. Sure. And I say that even if unions don’t believe they already have sufficient access (they do), a worker should be able to decide if he or she wants personal information given to a larger audience. If they want more information from a union they can, of course, seek it out, and they themselves can always share their personal information. 

The bill is unnecessary and kinda creepy. Public employers have extensive access to employee information. It’s no wonder law enforcement officers have strong privacy concerns with the bill. Teachers might, too. And anyone who has been a union-represented employee but who doesn’t always agree with a union knows that life can get uncomfortable if you’re seen as someone who opposes a union’s workplace or political ideas. 

Employees should have the right to choose — and can choose — whether personal contact information about them is shared. Letting employees opt in to information shared about their whereabouts and lives is fine. Public employers also already let new employees know how to access union representation.

In addition to this bill being over the line of what people expect to happen with their personal information in the hands of an employer, its requirements for releasing all this information regularly will create new work for public employers. Lawmakers should resist this union favor and protect workers.