Posts tagged ‘Childcare unionization’

July 19, 2010

More Union Thuggery

by lewwaters

As the video below shows, a Union Organizer from the California Nurses Association assaults a young Republican videotaping a public rally repeatedly.

Video from No Governor Moonbeam blog and linked to at Breibart TV

The Organizers name is ‘Mike’ and the video was taped on July 15, 2010 on the campus of Canada Community College. Union members had recently completed a rally outside the home of Meg Whitman in Atherton, Ca.

The CNA is linked to the SEIU.

Is this what we could have come to expect had HB 1329, the bill backed heavily by the SEIU and co-sponsored and twice voted for by Jaime Herrera had passed?

Jaime Herrera Says, “Trust Me”

Why I Question Jaime Herrera’s Judgment

Do we really need to try to send someone to Washington D.C. that cannot see the folly of their way in supporting and working to further the goals of such groups as the SEIU, who have been caught many times using such tactics as coercion and physical intimidation to get their way at our expense?

Jaime Herrera supported these people even against her constituents.

We need a strong consistent conservative like David Castillo and not a pro-union RINO like Herrera sent to Washington D.C.

June 7, 2010

Herrera Joins Other Republicans Towards the Bottom of EFF’s Big Spender List

by lewwaters

Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) has released their list of Big Spenders from Olympia and Jaime Herrera has joined in with 16 other Republican and 3 Democrats in being placed at the bottom of the list.

As evidenced by the notice she placed on her facebook page, she is rightfully proud of placing so low along with so many others.

I congratulate Herrera for such an accomplishment.

But, I wonder how she would have faired had HB 1329 been passed into law as either she did not do her homework or ignored it, but Evergreen Freedom Foundation, along with the Family Policy Institute of Washington came out solidly opposed to HB 1329, which would have forced Washington States child care centers into public unions which donated a considerable amount to her 2008 campaign.

Did Herrera Even Read HB 1329?

Herrera Campaigns Attempt At Damage Control

Is Jaime so naïve that she cannot see such a measure, which would have been passed against the will of childcare enters across the state, would have hurt the very low income people she says she tries to help?

Is she too inexperienced to realize that during a time of severe economic recession as we have been in these past couple of years that “collective bargaining” for child care centers against their wishes will push low income workers and single parents out of the state subsidized support programs?

Can she not see that such raises in payments from the state would only benefit the unions at the cost of increased taxes, even more than we now see hitting us on so many things?

I have been told by some of her ardent supporters that she “is learning” and “that she just had a lapse in judgment.” But, as evidenced in the memo sent out by Casey Bowman, Jaime’s campaign manager, she stands by her co-sponsoring and twice voting for a bill that would have put child care centers into the public unions, after those same child care centers had declined offers to voluntarily join when approached by the SEIU.

Jaime claims she was asked by child care centers to support such legislation, but a 2009 House Bill Report shows child care centers testifying against the bill, while unions were testifying for the bill.

Jaime should be congratulated for placing towards the bottom of EFF’s Big Spenders list, but we also cannot forget that she abandoned the Republican leadership and joined in with tax happy Democrats in raiding our rainy day fund of its last $229,000,000.00 during special session this year.

Jaime is a pleasant person, no doubt. But, she is either too naïve or too inexperienced to be sent to Washington D.C. where politics is even more cut throat than in Olympia.

I remain convinced that David Castillo is the right candidate for Washington’s 3rd Congressional District as he brings his experience as a Financial Advisor, sub-cabinet position in both the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Homeland Security as well as the maturity of a parent with him to the race.

Castillo was the first candidate to enter the race in trying to unseat Brian Baird, unlike Jaime Herrera, who couldn’t even wait for the ink to dry on Baird’s retirement announcement before jumping in, after saying for months that she wasn’t ready and it just wasn’t the right time for her to run.

You just aren’t ready for the big leagues, Jaime.

May 7, 2010

“Swiftboating” Jaime Herrera?

by lewwaters

While none are actually using the liberal pejorative misuse of the term “swiftboating” in regards to opponents of 3rd Congressional District candidate, Jaime Herrera, they may as well be with the loose talk of “lies” being told about her record.

I have noticed some Twitter claims floating around that say,

“I dont like Maddow, but i know @freedomworks lastest email is full of BS. Complete lies!! Shocking!!! So sad.” “Never thought I would see day @Freedomworks spread outright LIES against a GOP candidate.Complete LIES against @JaimeLHerrera.” And, “lame: @castillo_2010 can’t do big push w/out lying abt @JaimeLHerrera. latest Dick Armey email = laughable.”

Regular readers may recall how Herrera’s supporters were visibly upset that FreedomWorks endorsed David Castillo over Jaime Herrera, some setting out to literally trash FreedomWorks Dick Armey over the endorsement in spite of Herrera gaining endorsements from Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, former Senator Slade Gorton and former Representative Linda Smith, as well as two county GOP’s endorsing her months before even the candidate filing deadline arrives.

It is disappointing to see Herrera supporters resort to such liberal tactics as this; basically themselves doing the very thing they accuse others of, instead of defending or supporting her voting record in her short two years in the legislature. But, that is also where I use the term “swiftboating” as liberals have tried desperately to make the word a pejorative meaning, “a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue,” when it reality it means, “To reveal the essence of a defective person. To reveal an inconvenient truth a politician desires to keep hidden.”

In light of that, let’s look at what they claim this “lame, laughable lie” is.

Having received a copy of the email, in actuality a plea for donations to the Castillo campaign just as is sent out for donations to Herrera by her supporters and endorsers, I first read,

“David has a long track record of fighting on behalf of lower taxes and limited government. Working as an assistant state director for Washington Citizens for a Sound Economy (the predecessor organization of FreedomWorks) in the late 1990s, David helped drive grassroots campaigns to stop tax hikes and curb excessive government regulation in Washington State.

As the son of a single mother with four kids, he also knows what it is like to have to stretch every dollar and believes that if their family could stick to a budget, so can Congress. He’s a true grassroots candidate who needs the support of his fellow Washingtonians today.”

No lies there.

I next read,

“His opponent, Jaime Herrera, represents more of the same big government power grabs and preferential treatment for special interest groups that are driving the tax and spend agenda. In contrast to David’s proven limited government track record, Jaime’s record is one of vote after vote on behalf of her union boss supporters.

Jaime has been endorsed by SEIU Locals 925, 775 NW, and 1199 NW for her past votes on behalf of forced unionization like HB 1329 in both 2010 and 2009 that called for the forced unionization of child care workers or H.B 1389, the unionization of nuclear power plants. Jaime is living up to her promise to be “a friend of organized labor” at the expense of being a friend to taxpayers who are forced to deal with the higher costs and limited opportunities that come with forced unionization.

The poorly named “Employee Free Choice Act” or card check is still a major initiative the Obama Administration would love to pass to thank their Big Labor friends and Jaime is a vote for forced unionization they would definitely like to have.”

Obviously, this is what has the knickers of Jaime’s supporters in such a twist. But, where are the “lame, laughable, lies?” What is written is harsh maybe, but it is also a series of inconvenient truths.

She was endorsed by the SEIU in her 2008 reelection bid. She did co-sponsor and twice vote for HB 1329 that would have forced childcare centers into public unions, had Senate Republicans not been successful in removing the mandatory clause and replacing it with a voluntary one and making it more of a study then a new law. Did Herrera Even Read HB 1329?

She did vote yay on HB 1389 that would have allowed unionization of Nuclear Power Plants, just as stated in the email and documented by me at Jaime “I’m not more of the same” Herrera.

Jaime did declare herself “a friend of organized labor” during the nomination process when she was won the nomination to replace Richard Curtis as he vacated the seat she now occupies.

Can anyone state for a fact that she might not once again abandon her party and side with pro-union liberal Democrats in Washington D.C. in a vote for the “Employee Free Choice Act?”

When called on these questionable votes, Jaime’s standard reply has been something along the lines of , “well, such and such did too,” showing much immaturity.

Left out of the email was her abandoning her party along with a handful of Republicans to side with Democrats in draining the rainy day fund of $229,000,000 this year and excusing it as desiring to stop tax increases. They raised more taxes anyways.

Others have described her as Washington State’s SEIU Bought Republican due to accepting a $500 donation from the SEIU and another $800 donation from the AFSCME in her reelection bid.

Overall, she might have a fair voting record on most matters, but how does she explain such obvious anti-conservative votes as these above? She doesn’t. Her campaign manager instead sends out a lame memo that was more of an effort At Damage Control than explaining why she has sided with liberal Democrats on some bills that have or would have hurt workers and taxpayers in Washington State.

If Jaime Herrera is the strong candidate some claim she is, shouldn’t she be able to stand on her record and strengths instead of allowing surrogates to continue to play the weak defenseless damsel victim card?

Crying “lies” all the time when claims have been documented time and time again will not enable her to stand up to such a formidable opponent as Democrat Denny Heck.

If these are “lies,” I challenge Jaime herself or her starry eyed supporters to present factual documentation of such “lies.”

Until such time, since I have documented as true the very claims her supporters cry are lies, I admit to “swiftboating” Jaime Herrera, even though her supporters have not used that term. I readily admit to “revealing the essence of a defective person and revealing an inconvenient truth a politician desires to keep hidden.”

If Jaime cannot stand on these votes and positions she has taken, she should drop out of this race and cease trying to fool blue collar workers, those Typical Republican Conservatives she says she is not one of, that she is their friend and will represent them.

A final note to those Herrera supporters. Republicans never win elections by whining like liberal Democrats and trying to play the victim or even the race card! They win by taking conservative stands as David Castillo continues to do.

April 2, 2010

Herrera Campaigns Attempt At Damage Control

by lewwaters

After speaking on the radio Wednesday of 3rd Congressional District candidate Jaime Herrera’s co-sponsorship and twice voting for HB 1329, an act to “provide collective bargaining for child care center directors and workers,” I was initially pleased to receive an email from Casey Bowman, Jaime Herrera’s campaign manager titled “Herrera Information.”

Assuming that Casey heard me explain my understanding of Jaime’s involvement with the bill and thinking she was finally sending me her reasoning and explanation of her support for such a “draconian piece of legislation,” as previously mentioned in A Phone Chat With Jaime Herrera, I quickly became disappointed to see the email was nothing more than a snow job attempt at damage control, as news of Jaime’s involvement in such an anti-conservative bill must be hurting her campaign.

The message turns out to be little more than a memo circulated to supporters, I assume, smearing those of us who have serious questions about Jaime’s judgment, especially in regards to her co-sponsorship and two votes in favor of this liberal pro-union bill. The memo itself is preceded with a curt comment from Casey that said,

“Lew –

Please see the attached memo. Consider it the Herrera Campaign’s response to your questions about this issue. We appreciate your patience with Jaime’s limited schedule in light of this extended legislative session.

Casey Bowman
Jaime Herrera for Congress”

The memo itself says,

From: Casey Bowman, Campaign Manager, Jaime Herrera for Congress
Memo: Jaime Herrera and SEIU

It won’t shock you to learn that there’s a false accusation being made in the race for Washington’s 3rd Congressional Seat, but you might be surprised at just how off base the claim is that Rep. Jaime Herrera is a big union supporter. In 2008 Jaime was endorsed by every major business group in Washington state, including the Association of Washington Business, NFIB, Independent Business Association of Washington, Washington Restaurant Association and others. She has never supported compulsory unionism and never will. She is a strong opponent of “card check” because she has seen the excesses of union leaders and is fully aware of the threats and intimidation that card check would inflict on workers.

To prove the false claim that Jaime is a big union supporter, her detractors point to legislation, HB 1329, she supported involving child care centers. Their claim is that the legislation forced “compulsory” unionization of child care workers. That simply is not true. Here are the facts:

· Washington state reimburses child care centers for care of kids under the state’s sponsorship. Many of these business owners believe that they should receive a better reimbursement rate from the state for caring for the most vulnerable children.

· The bill allowed child care center owners and workers to choose to have SEIU represent the business in negotiating better reimbursement rates from the state.

· The bill said nothing about unionizing the workforce. Child care center workers wouldn’t pay union dues or fees and wouldn’t be forced to join a union, at any time. The bill was at the request of the small business owners of day care centers.

Those are the facts about this legislation. Again, Jaime has never supported compulsory unionism and never will. That is why she is such a fervent opponent of card check. If the facts don’t sound anything like the claims of those attacking Jaime and her voting record, then you should ask them why they are spreading these false claims.”

Is it a “false claim” that Jaime co-sponsored and twice voted for this bill? No. Is it a “false claim” as to what we see in the bill? Casey Bowman says it is. But, what about others? Why was Jaime one of only 3 Republicans in the House to co-sponsor such a bill alongside 28 Democrats?

30 of her fellow Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against this bill while 57 Democrats voted for it alongside Jaime and a couple others.

In doing actual research into the bill I was amazed at just how much opposition there has been to it, apparently missed by both Herrera and her campaign manager, Casey Bowman.

Bowman emphasis’s that support of the bill “was at the request of the small business owners of day care centers.” Yet, a 2009 House Bill Report indicates those speaking in support of it before Commerce and Labor were Kim Cook, Megan Price, and Barbara Tristan, Service Employees International Union; Lucinda Young, Washington Education Association and American Federation of Teachers; Diane Gaile, Mariah Collaborative Arts Center and Washington Educators for Early Learning; Molly Boyajian, League of Education Voters; and Kim Gilligan, Washington Educators for Early Learning.

Opposed were Tom Emery, Love and Laughter Learning Center; Ginger Still, Kid’s World Childcare; Candi Doran, Little Orca Learning Center; Colleen Hill, Country Kids Playhouse; Kim Pressell, Middleland Kiddie Korral; and Margo Logan, Washington Parents for Safe Child Care.

Before the House Ways & Means Committee, those testifying in support were Adair Dammonn, Service Employees International Union 925; and Lucinda Young, Washington Education Association.

Those opposed were David Foster, Washington Child Care United; Tom Emery, Washington Child Care Alliance; and Amy Bell, YMCA of Washington.

While there is an element of truth in the bill does not mandate union membership, NOW, after the senate was successful in inserting a “voluntary opt-in” clause, several editorials were published condemning and opposing the bill’s original intent of making union membership “mandatory.”

In February 2009, Washington Policy Center issued a 10 page Policy Brief titled Unionizing Daycare that begins with,

For unionized daycare workers, membership in the union Local would be a mandatory condition of employment, and failure to pay union dues in full and on time would be cause for dismissal.”

Around the same time, editorials began appearing around the state in opposition of this bill. The Yakima Herald-Republic had Bid to unionize child-care centers still a bad idea. KOMO News ran Not all daycare owners thrilled about child-care unionization. The Seattle Times had State Senate should kill child-care unionization bill. The Tacoma News-Tribune ran Fund child-care, skip the middleman.

After the bill died in committee again, the Northwest Religious Liberty Association posted FORCED UNIONIZATION BILL IS DEFEATED!

Evergreen Freedom Foundation ran several posts in opposition as well. January 27, 2009 saw SEIU wants their cut of money for kids. February 10, 2009 saw Newspapers argue against unionizing daycares. Damning the bill, March 10, 2009 saw State House puts SEIU ahead of children.

In all, a search of Evergreen Freedom Foundations website of HB 1329 resulted in about 10 posts in opposition, many claiming “compulsory unionization” at least in part.

Scott Dilley of Evergreen Freedom Foundation gave neutral testimony before the House mentioning conservative concerns with this bill.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington ran two posts expressing strong conservative concerns with the bill titled WA Legislature Threatens Women’s Choice and Bill Encourages Churches to Indoctrinate Young Children?

Casey Bowman tells us we are “spreading false claims.” Are we to believe all the above, newspapers and conservative institutes that do not even mention Jaime or any of her opponents and largely remain neutral in campaigns are “spreading false claims” as well?

Jaime Herrera’s co-sponsorship and twice voting in favor of this bill are a matter of public record. What remains not public is her reasoning and thought process to go against the majority of conservatives in the legislature by supporting this “draconian piece of legislation.”

Bowman also states “Jaime has never supported compulsory unionism and never will.” If I am to accept that, which I largely do, then it brings to mind, Did Herrera Even Read HB 1329?

Jaime Herrera’s campaign would do much better by just honestly admitting to and explaining her reasoning in supporting this bill and not trying to blow it off with such a weak effort at a snow job.

Voters deserve no less.

March 28, 2010

Jaime Herrera, Allow Me To Introduce You To The “Typical Republican Conservative”

by lewwaters

To say it is a disappointment to hear of yet another County GOP endorsing a candidate 5 months before the primary would be a gross understatement. Such early party endorsements are a disservice to voters and a slap towards candidates still campaigning and drawing in support.

Cowlitz County GOP announced their early endorsement of Shannon Barnett and Jaime Herrera and now Pacific County GOP has followed suit with an early endorsement of Jaime Herrera.

Pacific County GOP has issued a Press Release that says in part,

“After a discussion weighting the pros and cons of pre-primary endorsements and the new Top Two Primary ballot, their attention moved to learning about candidates for U.S. Senate and the 3rd Congressional District. The delegates had the opportunity to hear the candidates speak and meet with candidates one on one the previous Saturday at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner. Delegates shared their impressions and asked questions of each other about reasons for supporting candidates. A straw poll was conducted for the position being vacated by Brian Baird. State Representative Jaime Herrera won the poll with 95% of the vote. Upon announcement of the poll results, long time South Bend community leader Vince Shaudys placed a motion to endorse Herrera, explaining his desire for the grassroots to ‘get behind one candidate.’ The motion to endorse passed unanimously. Pacific GOP Chair Nansen Malin observed, ‘As county parties we are normally very reluctant to make pre-primary endorsements. Despite my cautions, it’s really exciting to see the grassroots so inspired by a candidate’.”

I question such “grassroots inspired by a candidate.” I recall in 2008 how so called grassroots had ‘politikook’ Ron Paul winning everything in online polls, donations and what have you, except for the actual election.

I am unaware of “grassroots” becoming pro-union, agreeing with Herrera’s co-sponsorship and twice voting to force childcare centers to join unions they had previously declined to or siding with Democrats in raiding the states rainy day fund, supposedly in an effort to prevent their raising more taxes. AS we know, regardless of where they raid funds, Democrats will always seek another way to raise our taxes, as they have once again after Jaime Herrera’s siding with the Democrats and voting to raid $229,000,000 from the rainy day fund.

You got suckered on that one Jaime. Shortly after her joining in with Democrats to raid the rainy day fund, we find in the Seattle PI, Wash. Democratic lawmakers look at new tax options.

If she can be suckered that easily by State Democrats, think how much fun those back in D.C. will have fooling her at our expense? See also,

Jaime “I’m not more of the same” Herrera

A Phone Chat With Jaime Herrera

Did Herrera Even Read HB 1329?

Is It Negative To Speak The Truth?

Why I Question Jaime Herrera’s Judgment

I believe what I find most astonishing about this so-called “grassroots support” is wondering if Jaime Herrera even knows what grassroots is?

I say that as I witnessed her stand before nearly 3,000 everyday, ordinary Patriotic grassroots citizens of Washington State who rallied together at the State Capital steps in Olympia in support of Attorney General Rob McKenna yesterday, March 27, 2010.

She gave her campaign speech and acts as if she too is one of “us,” us being real grassroots Patriots standing up for American freedoms and liberties.

I looked throughout the crowd and mingled with these same people, knowing many drove up in used vehicles, are struggling to pay their rent, feed their children and care for their families due to these tough economic times brought on by politicians.

I heard her invoke her niece in her speech, not the children she and her husband may have in the future.

And then I thought back to the words she spoke to reporters the day she ducked out of legislative session to attend a special interest fund-raiser in Washington D.C. and said, “My husband and I rent. We both drive used cars. We’re not your typical Republican conservative.”

Ms. Herrera, allow me to introduce you to the “typical Republican conservative.” They were those 3,000 people you stood before, many of whom rent, drive used cars and are struggling to care for their families and feed their children.

They are the people you only have time for when it suits your need in campaigning for votes. Yes, Jaime, I have heard from several constituents how you shun their calls and ignore them when they seek to meet with you. I still await the email explanation of your support and vote to force childcare centers into public unions that they had previously declined and you promised to send me on February 9, 2010.

It’s been almost 2 months, Jaime.

I am left to ponder just what Jaime Herrera’s idea of a “typical Republican conservative” is if she considers everyday life, renting and driving used vehicles as not typical. Surely she doesn’t side with her Democrat friends on thinking we are all rich fat cats too?

I also wonder just what sort of “grassroots support” she merits when she doesn’t even recognize “grassroots” in the “typical Republican conservative.”

We don’t need to send another elitist RINO to D.C. to rejoin the party circuit she obviously misses and not really represent us.

We don’t need a candidate who brags on about “grassroots support” yet can’t even recognize those same people when standing before them.

If Cowlitz and Pacific County GOP’s desire to see the Democrats retain the Third Congressional District seat, such early endorsements from their parties is the way to accomplish just that.

We deserve a strong representative who has lived in poverty and raised himself up.

We deserve a representative that knows renting and driving used cars is not something to be ashamed of or reluctant to admit.

We deserve someone who will actually work for us, the people and not the Party machine that has groomed her for the fast track into an office she is completely unqualified for.

We need David Castillo.

March 7, 2010

Why I Question Jaime Herrera’s Judgment

by lewwaters

Ever since Jaime’s sudden and rapid jump into the Washington 3rd Congressional District race, less than 2 hours after Brian Baird announced his retirement this term, several less than complementary emails and comments have come my way because I dare to speak out against the one that appears to be the “party’s chosen one,” even though our primaries are still months away.

I’m not crying about the comments, mind you. I’m a big boy now and can take whatever is thrown my way, even if it is off base or over the top accusations. I mention them to show that perhaps those questioning my choice of candidate ought to be questioning theirs instead.

One of my main reasons I question her judgment has been and remains her co-sponsorship and voting twice for unionizing childcare centers in Washington State, HB 1329, that I have posted on previously HERE and HERE.

She has since told at least one constituent that her pro-union vote for childcare centers was due to her being contacted by providers from within her district who felt they were insufficiently paid by the state for children in their care. A claim I find very odd since the Family Policy Institute of Washington posted on their web page February 8, 2010,

“In 2007, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) approached child care centers (not home day care centers) in Washington about joining the union. After learning that the union would not disclose how much membership was going to cost or specify the benefits that the centers would receive, they declined.”

Yet, Jaime told her constituent that the providers she says contacted her “felt the need to unionize.”

I have yet to understand why any childcare provider that “felt the need to unionize” would need state legislation to do so. FPIW tells us the Unions

“went to their friends in the legislature who take lots and lots of their money for campaigns and asked the legislature to force daycare centers to reap the blessings of union membership—whether they like it or not.”

Jaime made no mention of any providers contacting her and who “felt the need to unionize” during the phone call she placed to me February 9.

An even more apt example of why I question her judgment has surfaced in an article found on the Washington State Wire website on how the SEIU is winning a $6.5 Million award from our state during these difficult economic times for an SEIU-Backed “rigorous state-supervised training and certification program for people who care for the sick and elderly.” Initially voted in under I-1029, Governor Gregoire suspended the measure due to tight fiscal restraints and that the Seattle Times even recommended rejecting.

It was voted in largely in part to the SEIU investing nearly one million dollars in backing the measure.

In reading through the Washington State Wire article linked above, it strikes me that this could very easily be an article from the future over problems that will inevitably beset childcare centers that end up being pushed into Unions, like it or not. From the article, I read in part,

“Over the last decade [SEIU] has made a big push to organize home-care workers, starting with Initiative 775 in 2001, which allowed collective bargaining for those under state contract. Recently the state recognized the union as the official representative for all the independent care providers working for the Department of Social and Health Services. That caused some consternation. It meant people who draw state paychecks to care for relatives in their own homes had to start paying union dues.”

“The rules cover everyone who provides care in a home setting, from non-union employees of regulated private agencies to those who tack up their cards at the local Safeway bulletin boards and offer their services.”

I urge you to read the entire Washington State Wire article and just imagine it is actually from the future and about the same problems seen now in home care giving, yet in childcare centers that today are facing joining unions under state legislation and that Jaime not only voted for but co-sponsored.

And ask yourself, if childcare centers really “felt the need to unionize,” couldn’t they do so without legislation mandating they do so? Especially since they were first contacted by the SEIU?

Another constituent accusing me of being a “Herrera hater” stated to me, “Frankly this SEIU business is blown completely out of all reasonable proportion.”

I don’t believe it is blown out of proportion at all and it does cause me to question the judgment of a person seeking to be a United States Representative representing Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.

Instead of supporting a candidate out of friendship or because of geography, I prefer to support and hope to see elected a candidate that has trained their judgment in such votes to actually be for the best for residents in the district, not for the betterment of a Union.

Maybe in time, Jaime will better train her judgment.

February 20, 2010

Don Benton Vindicated

by dem2gop

Recent writings mentioned that Don Benton supported HB1329 that mandated child care directors and workers to unionize. For purposes of negotiation, it also makes them state workers. I read the Senate version and contacted Senator Benton directly. 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. Thank goodness we have a few savvy Republicans to help avert the madness. They can’t stop everything but are working hard to do what they can.

Reference: A Phone Chat With Jaime Herrera

February 16, 2010

Did Herrera Even Read HB 1329?

by lewwaters

For the second week in a row, conservative pro-family Family Policy Institute of Washington has brought up what has every appearance to be anti-family wording buried deep within HB 1329, a bill “Providing collective bargaining for child care center directors and workers.”

Surprisingly enough, Republican candidate for Washington States Third Congressional District and Representative for Washington States 18th Legislative District, Jaime Herrera not only voted for this pro-union bill, but is listed as a co-sponsor of it.

FPIW told us on Monday, February 8, 2010 in a post, WA Legislature Threatens Women’s Choice that childcare centers turned down the SEIU’s offer of Union Representation in 2007, “After learning that the union would not disclose how much membership was going to cost or specify the benefits that the centers would receive.”

After being turned down, FPIW informs us that Union Officials approached “their friends in the legislature… and asked the legislature to force daycare centers to reap the blessings of union membership.”

Having had more time to read the bill and digest what is contained in it, FPIW tells us today, February 15, 2010 Bill Encourages Churches to Indoctrinate Young Children? Reading over what they discovered makes me further question Jaime Herrera’s support of this bill, as I continue to wait for the email explanation she previously promised to send me during the phone call she placed to me last week.

FPIW informs us now, “On page 4 of the bill, it says that any agreement between workers and the unions must be ‘consistent with the provisions of any quality rating and improvement system’.” The exact wording of that section says,

“The public employer is: (A) Required to bargain over the manner and rate of subsidy and reimbursement, so long as any agreement is consistent with the provisions of any quality rating and improvement system.”

Pointing out the wording seems to “appear to be nothing more than a way to track the effectiveness of education” at first glance, FPIW further tells us that such a “quality rating and improvement system” already exists and has been “carefully defined by the Department of Early Learning” in a 216 page publication, “Washington State Early Learning and Development Benchmarks,” A Guide To Young Children’s Learning and Development: From Birth To Kindergarten.

FPIW then lists some of these “benchmarks” that would most likely cause many conservative families to raise an eyebrow or two in disagreement. Page 63 is one they list that should disturb many parents where it says “caregivers are encouraged to ‘read stories with child and elicit responses to characters, including stories from diverse cultures and family structures (e.g., single parent, same sex parents)’.”

A backdoor method to place Churches in the uncomfortable position of teaching same sex marriage is just another an “alternate lifestyle?”

This is one reason I question if Jaime Herrera even read the bill or what it might lead to. She voted against Domestic Partnerships, but votes for and co-sponsors a bill that very likely could lead to small children being indoctrinated in just that?

Not mentioned by FPIW, but one I find disturbing is found on page 55 of the publication where it states, “Find out how child’s other caregivers negotiate and resolve disputes.”

Interrogation? Is it possible these “other caregivers” might also include “parents?”

Of course, the bill would only force childcare centers that “accept children whose care is subsidized by the state” to accept unions, but in these economic perilous times, might that include many low income and single parents families struggling to get by who have had to turn to the state for assistance in caring for their children so they may work?

I think in such times as we are currently in, there is at least the potential for more and more low income and single parents families having to resort to state assistance in greatly increased.

As mentioned by FPIW, should churches around the state that now provide childcare to decide to decline accepting “state subsidies” for children they care for currently, to avoid state supervision of the curriculum, might that not also increase the cost low income and single parent families might have to pay?

Jaime said to me in our telephone conversation last Tuesday words to the effect of she was trying to “fix how we pay for childcare,” “do what is right for people” and that it was a “moral issue” to her in co-sponsoring and voting for HB 1329.

Seeing what FPIW found in their research and what I discovered on my own within the 216 page “A Guide To Young Children’s Learning and Development” publication, I have to question if she either read or understood the Bill.

If she did, then she obviously has yet to discover “the law of unintended consequences.”

How someone who calls them self a ‘conservative Republican’ could co-sponsor or vote for such a monstrosity as this is beyond me.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that Fox News’ John Stossel covered this subject and the detrimental effect it had upon “private day-care” centers in Michigan where they underwent FORCED UNIONIZATION.

A Wall Street Journal article from December 2009 brings up the point that such forced unionization just may violate the U.S. Constitution. The article reads,

“The freedom of association clause prevents compulsory unionism except, courts have determined, when it is necessary for “labor peace.” But in this case, whom would the day-care providers riot against? The parents?”

The suit filed in Michigan is currently on appeal as it was dismissed “with no reason given or legal opinion expressed.”

Ms. Herrera, is it “moral” to force people against their will into Unions? Is this what you consider “doing what is right for the people?” Or, doing what the Union Bosses desire?

I still await your email explanation.

January 28, 2010

What Is Kathie Durbin and The Columbian Up To Now?

by lewwaters

Any regular reader of the Columbian knows that we can always count on Kathie Durbin to fawn all over Liberal Democrats and write against Republicans. It’s almost a given that whatever she writes will always be biased towards the left.

Nothing illegal in that, but objectivity in reporting is not her strong suit.

That is why I was a bit surprised to see her pen the January 26, 2010 article, Herrera pushes GOP health care reforms as if 3rd Congressional District candidate Jaime Herrera is a driving force in Olympia.

As one of the least experienced Representatives of either party in Olympia, she isn’t.

Odd in all of this is that the health care debate and program is a federal policy, not a state policy. What possible effect could state policy on health care have in regards to federal policy?

But, why that headline? Why publish something with a headline as if Jaime Herrera is the second coming?

The following day, the Columbian ran an article on the House in Olympia approving a bill authorizing Child Care workers to Unionize, a move that will surely impact and hurt single parent households and low income families that must rely on child care to watch their children while they work.

This will be the third time Jaime Herrera, supposedly a conservative Republican, has voted to authorize such a policy and somehow, she does not receive praise from the Columbian for this vote.

Could the reason they fail to mention her ongoing support for such a pro-union vote be that they know full well conservative Republicans do not agree with such moves?

How many conservative Republican candidates do you know of that receive financial support in their campaigns from the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) as does Ms. Herrera?

How many conservative candidates do you know of who even support more Unionization today?

Maybe Jaime appreciates how well the Unions have helped out the automakers and large cities like Detroit, New York and others and wish to see Washington State follow suit?

Still, I was left wondering why the Columbian did not tie her to a pro-union vote, but Kathie Durbin praised her effort on a health care position.

Then, it dawned on me. We saw this back in 2007 and 2008 as the media strongly supported the nomination of John McCain, probably one of the weakest candidates we have ever ran, for president. Obviously, they knew he was weak and having him nominated for our party would give the Democrat candidate an easier run, as we saw happen in the November vote.

Is this the move now? Is Ms. Durbin selecting such headlines and stories to convince GOP voters to select Herrera over more qualified and stronger candidates, to give the Democrats an easier run in replacing retiring Brian Baird?

After all, if they are so proud of her work in advancing health care, shouldn’t they be equally as proud of her work in advancing union membership, even though it will hurt low-income workers with children?

Let’s not allow the media to bamboozle us again and stick us with a weak unelectable candidate.

Do your homework and see for yourself just who really has the best interest of citizens in the 3rd Congressional District at heart.