Who could oppose protecting seniors and the vulnerable from identity thieves?

That is the calculation that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has made in Washington State, pushing an extremely deceptive ballot measure that purports to be an anti-ID theft initiative — but really only changes the state’s Public Records Act in order to help the union.

“We have won at each level in court, now the SEIU just wants to change the law … This initiative is a major deception.”

The ballot language reads as follows:

“Initiative Measure No. 1501 concerns seniors and vulnerable individuals. This measure would increase the penalties for criminal identity theft and civil consumer fraud targeted at seniors or vulnerable individuals; and exempt certain information of vulnerable individuals and in-home caregivers from public disclosure. Should this measure be enacted into law?”

For a voter not following the background on this ballot initiative, that language is tough to vote “no” on. But it’s not only inaccurate — it’s a ridiculous leap. The rationale being that if any information on home health workers is public, then these state employees who primarily care for seniors are more subject to ID theft than others. Aside from that, ID theft is just a red herring.

If the initiative passes, it would actually just shield the name and contact information of public employees from the Public Records Act — the Washington State version of the Freedom of Information Act.

[lz_ndn video= 31599642]

The SEIU wants to do this explicitly to prevent a conservative think tank, the Freedom Foundation, from using the public information law to obtain the names of state-employed home health workers who are members of the SEIU.

The Freedom Foundation has used the records law to obtain lists of employees through various public records requests.

Then it contacted these state workers to inform them of their legal rights not to pay union dues. As a result, SEIU membership has plummeted by about 60 percent. Instead of making the case to employees about the benefits of membership, the powerful union just sought to change the law in their favor.

[lz_graphiq id=1IxSuEtehRH]

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

It first sued to block the release of the lists, but the state courts sided with the Freedom Foundation. The union pushed the legislature to change the law and failed. So a ballot initiative is the last-ditch effort to block off this information.

“We have won at each level in court, now the SEIU just wants to change the law,” Max Nelson, director of labor policy for the Freedom Foundation, told LifeZette. “This initiative is a major deception.”

Of course, it wouldn’t just affect the Freedom Foundation. The vote is whether Washington residents want to make their government less open and transparent, because no one from the public would have access to this information.

The sole funder of the measure has been the SEIU, which has spent $1.6 million on ads promoting the initiative. The Freedom Foundation has spent only about $15,000 in opposition. So the deceptive message is essentially drowning out the truth.

Except — even some on the Left are offended by this union scam.

The Seattle Times, the state’s largest newspaper, which endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and Patty Murray for re-election to the Senate, calls I-1501 a “Trojan horse.” The newspaper pointed out that despite what the ads for I-1501 say, the “account numbers and balances” and “passwords” are not available through public records, even though the SEIU is scaring the public into believing these things are.

A 2014 Supreme Court ruling determined that home health workers cannot be required to pay union dues. Because they are employed by taxpayers, their names and some information about public employees is a matter of public record under the Washington State Public Records Act, and similarly in most other states.

Significant in the deception is that no information about seniors and the vulnerable who are getting care is available to the public at all. Only the names of state employees are available, and the public records law already shields sensitive information that might entice ID thieves. So, despite the bogus ballot language, changing the records law — making government less open and accountable — would do nothing to prevent identity theft or protect seniors and the vulnerable.

“What is clear is that I-1501 would set a bad precedent. It would establish that clever special-interest groups could carve holes in the Public Records Act to their benefit, if they’ve got $1.6 million to spend,” a Seattle Times editorial said.

Other newspaper editorial boards throughout the state, from both the Right and the Left, oppose the measure. As a professional matter, journalists of all stripes tend of frown on weakening freedom of information laws.

The SEIU hasn’t totally been mum about its intent. The state’s chapter posted a tweet touting that Initiative 1501 would help its members, with an attached statement from a state caregiver and SEIU member, Darryl Johnson.

[lz_related_box id=”239845″]

“Groups like the Freedom Foundation are threatening our union,” Johnson said. “They tell us to stop paying dues — but that would weaken our union and roll back what we’ve won, like paid time off, insurance, and training. I-1501 will keep the Freedom Foundation and others from getting personal information [from] us and our clients. A vote for 1-1501 is a vote to protect our union, ourselves, and our clients.”

Again, the SEIU has been scant with details on how exactly this protects their clients — the people home care workers care for.

But there is a reason union membership has been dropping. Workers are seeing little benefit from paying the dues, as organized labor has become a money-raising device for the Democratic Party, rather than advocating for workers.

“Nobody is against protecting seniors and vulnerable people from identity theft, but we’ve been doing our very best to show that’s not what this does,” Nelson said. “Every major newspaper is against this. This initiative is entirely indefensible when it’s under scrutiny.”