In Washington state, union representation remains relatively high compared with the nation, yet just 19.4% of wage and salary workers were covered by a union contract in 2025. That means roughly four out of five Washington workers are not represented by a union, and their voices are often overlooked when unions take public positions.

Union endorsements are not universal

When a union backs or opposes a ballot initiative, the stance belongs to the organization, not to every worker it represents. Individual members may disagree, and union‑funded campaign contributions do not prove that all members approve of using their dues for political purposes.

Current ballot measures and union opposition

Major union‑affiliated funds such as the Washington Education Association, Washington Federation of State Employees and SEIU 775 Ballot Fund have poured money into campaigns against three key initiatives on this year’s ballot:

• Initiative I‑001 – a measure that would restore parents’ access to school‑held medical and mental‑health counseling records, require prior notification before medical services are offered, and ensure notice when schools arrange treatment beyond normal hours.
• Initiative I‑638 – a proposal concerning participation in athletics at K‑12 schools.
• Initiative I‑645 – a repeal of the state income tax that was enacted by Democratic legislators earlier this year.

These initiatives touch on parental‑rights, school‑sports policy and tax policy – issues that affect families, teachers and taxpayers across the state.

One teacher’s dissenting voice

Travis Reep, a fifth‑grade teacher in Thurston County, serves as a vivid example. Reep, a father of four and an elected union representative for the Washington Education Association, publicly supports Initiative I‑001 despite his union’s opposition. “I happen to be a teacher who wants to partner with parents,” he says, emphasizing the importance of parental involvement in school‑based health decisions.

Voluntary membership and transparency

Washington law permits unions to use general treasury funds – derived from members’ dues – for ballot‑initiative campaigns without obtaining individual consent. While legal, this practice can leave workers feeling compelled to support political messaging they do not share.

Public employers can do more to protect workers’ rights. State law could require clear notification that union membership is voluntary, and many agencies already have the ability to inform new hires of their right to join or decline a union. The Washington Policy Center has created a neutral resource that employers can display in onboarding packets or staff lounges, ensuring workers understand their options.

Economic implications of the income‑tax repeal

Beyond the immediate political debate, the proposed repeal of the state income tax carries significant economic weight. A new Buckeye Institute study, released with the Washington Policy Center, projects that keeping the tax would cost Washington about 7,800 full‑time‑equivalent jobs by 2028 compared with a scenario without the tax. While the projection is a model, it underscores the need for voters to weigh the broader employment impact.

For families like the New family – whose director, Elizabeth New, lives in Clark County and leads the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center – the availability of jobs is a critical concern. “Our sons and daughters need a robust job market,” she notes, linking tax policy directly to family well‑being.

Why individual choice matters

Unions play a vital role in advocating for workers, but they cannot claim to represent the entire Washington workforce or every member’s viewpoint. Workers should be encouraged to study each issue, consider how it aligns with their values and family needs, and make informed decisions at the ballot box.

By emphasizing voluntary membership, transparent communication and the economic realities of tax policy, Washington can ensure that the true voice of its workers – not just the voice of organized labor – is heard.

Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.