When a union endorses or opposes a ballot measure or candidate, its position should always be identified as that of the union organization. It does not establish the views of Washington state’s workers generally — or even of every member of that union.
First, even in Washington state, where union representation is relatively high, only 19.4% of wage and salary workers were represented by unions in 2025. (That compares to 11.2% nationally, and these figures include both union members and nonmembers whose jobs were covered by union contracts.) At 19.4%, that means about four in five Washington wage and salary workers were outside of union representation.
Second, a union’s decision to support or oppose a ballot measure does not establish that every worker it represents agrees. Likewise, its campaign donations do not demonstrate that every union member approves of using dues drawn from workers’ wages to promote the position.
Unions and union-affiliated funds, including the Washington Education Association, Washington Federation of State Employees and SEIU 775 Ballot Fund, are among the major funders of campaigns opposing this year’s ballot initiatives. Those include Initiative IL26-001, concerning parental rights in public schools; Initiative IL26-638, concerning participation in athletics at K-12 schools; and IP26-645, the initiative to repeal an income tax passed by Democrat state legislators earlier this year. The unions represent taxpayer-financed workers in schools, state agencies and workers offering caregiving services.
Travis Reep provides an example of how a union’s endorsement can differ from the views of its own members.
Reep is a fifth-grade teacher in Thurston County. He is a father of four, an elected local union representative and a WEA member. He is speaking out in support of I-001, despite WEA’s opposition. The initiative would, among other provisions, restore parents’ access to school-held medical and mental-health counseling records, require prior notification when medical services are offered, except in emergencies, and require notification when schools arrange treatment involving follow-up care beyond normal school hours.
“I happen to be a teacher who wants to partner with parents,” Reep says. Read more here.
Union political advocacy can draw on dues and include communications urging members to support particular positions. In Washington state, unions may use general treasury funds derived from members’ dues for ballot-initiative campaigns without obtaining each member’s separate approval for that campaign, subject to the union’s governing rules.
For this reason, and many others, it’s important that public employees understand that union membership is voluntary. No one should be forced to support politicking with which he or she disagrees.
State law could require public employers to adequately notify new employees that they have a right to join — or not join — a union. Even without a law, individual public employers can and should do better letting workers know their participation rights.
For this reason, the Washington Policy Center created a neutral resource that public employers can use to inform workers in onboarding or in staff lounges where other employee rights are posted. Too often, information about union membership being voluntary is buried in an employee handbook. Employees with questions about dues are often referred to union leaders who have a financial interest in whether employees join.
Supporting workers also means expanding job choices
Better supporting individual workers also means considering their ability to find work, develop skills and choose among employers.
Economist Milton Friedman makes that point in “Who Protects the Worker?” In that talk, he rightly argues that competing employers give workers bargaining power: “The real protection that a worker gets is the existence of more than one possible employer.” Workers benefit when they have alternatives.
The effects of tax policy on employment belong in that discussion. A new Buckeye Institute study, published with Washington Policy Center, projects that Washington state’s new income tax would leave the state with about 7,800 fewer full-time-equivalent jobs in 2028 than it would have without the tax. That is a model projection, but the implications for employment deserve serious attention.
Unions urging voters to oppose the income-tax repeal on the November ballot should explain how their position serves workers in our state in light of that projected employment cost. For my recently graduated sons, and all our sons and daughters, the availability of jobs in our state matters greatly. A new income tax’s effect on workers reaches far beyond the people who would pay the tax directly.
Union organizations are helping fund opposition campaigns, but they cannot claim to represent the views of Washington’s entire workforce or even all of their members. Workers should study the issues and speak for themselves.
