To review: here's the story, here's the video, and here's part one.

Now: Part Two, in which House Speaker Frank Chopp talks about the failed worker privacy bill that made labor furious at him, and why he's grateful for the progressive agenda.

ELI SANDERS: We never got to the question of worker privacy.

HOUSE SPEAKER FRANK CHOPP: Yeah, that’s right. We can get to that. We, uh, I personally support that bill. We were able to get to about 44 votes in our caucus for that. You need 50 to pass it. And then this thing happened with this e-mail from the state labor council, and the lawyers, basically, including the governor, recommended that we report it as a problem.

SANDERS: The labor council feels like—well, that’s not the way they will tell the story. They will say that you and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown accused them of attempted extortion, or cast them as criminals and so on. I mean, they are furious about this.

CHOPP: You know, I think that the legislature should have handled that issue better. I agree with that.

SANDERS: What would have been a better way of handling it?

CHOPP: Well hopefully, we are doing things in the legislature because we believe in the philosophy and the merits of the point of view, versus something for campaign purposes. So I offered to labor that this issue be reconsidered…

SANDERS: This coming session?

CHOPP: Yes.

Set aside the extraneous issues of campaign finances, and focus in on the merits of the proposal. The proposal is very sound. It basically says that if you are an employee, you shouldn’t be fooled or coerced to attend a meeting, in which they tell you—“Oh, we want you to believe in this religion,” or “This, boy, don’t join that union,” and—what was the other category? Charitable contributions, things like that. So I fundamentally believe that. The question though was whether the state legislature could actually enact such a law, because the federal labor laws preempt states from doing a lot of this stuff. So there’s a big difference of opinion about whether the state can actually legally enact a bill and have it carried out.

SANDERS: Which side of that debate do you fall on?

CHOPP: Well, I think it’s worth trying to challenge it in court. But the court record on this is not too promising, let’s put it that way... So, the, it really is an issue of what the state legislature can legally, constitutionally do, because of the federal preemption on labor laws.

Nevertheless, they wanted to have a test case in the courts. Oregon passed it. I wanted to try it again this next session, and the agenda that they have for next year, that was directly given to me by the labor council, it’s not on the list anymore. They have their test case through the Oregon thing. But the fundamental concept I totally agree with, because workers should not be forced to go to mandatory meetings against their will on things like union organizing, religion, that sort of thing.

SANDERS: Why couldn’t you have pushed the bill even after the e-mail came to light?

CHOPP: Well, I don’t know. I just think that there was—I’m not an attorney, and they were just real concerned about the whole interaction with that particular e-mail. But I think that, you know, I want people to come back to the merits of the whole actual proposal. And I’m totally in support of that. In fact, I feel very strongly about it, because you’ve got folks that are wanting to join a union, including at newspapers—I don’t know, have you used this?

SANDERS: We don’t have a union at The Stranger. We’re a pretty small.

CHOPP: Well, you gotta start a union, maybe, and see what happens to your managers. What would happen if you were at a mandatory meeting with your employers and they were telling you, “No, don’t join a union”?

SANDERS: I just want you to outlaw the secret cult meetings that Dan Savage makes us attend.

CHOPP: Well, there you go. That’s covered, I guess.

SANDERS: If you would pass worker privacy. Jesus.

CHOPP: [Laughs.] So, I believe in the fundamental proposal. It gets into complicated legal things between what is allowed at the state level versus the feds, OK? That’s it. And I could have personally handled the situation better. I’ve told labor that. I don’t feel good about how it came down at all. So I’m sorry. I’m sorry. And I’ve told them that.

SANDERS: So what’s the problem? Because they’re not over it.

CHOPP: No, I understand. But there’s some—it depends on who you talk to, frankly. There’s all sorts of labor unions and they all have their agendas. In fact, let me give you an example, one of the major contributors to the [labor-funded] Dime PAC actually asked me to their state convention. Or, excuse me, their western states conference. So I was one of their keynote speakers. At their convention. They’re, I think they’re giving about $80,000 to the Dime PAC. And that union’s legislative agenda was completed—we passed it 100 percent.

SANDERS: Well, I’ll tell you who I was talking to: the Washington State Labor Council, which, you know, is a pretty powerful entity, and John Rolf—Mr. Rolf at SEIU

CHOPP: David Rolf.

SANDERS: David Rolf, sorry—at SEIU. So obviously, you know, he’s also a big voice in the…

CHOPP: David Rolf asked me to be a keynote speaker at his convention this year.

SANDERS: David Rolf told me yesterday that he’s very disappointed with the leadership in Olympia and the way it conducted itself last season.

CHOPP: Well, I think that we all need to do better, all around the block, both in terms of the legislators and in terms of various advocacy groups.

And so I’m just rededicating myself in a very positive way to pass a progressive agenda, because I fundamentally have spent my life on these issues. These are not abstract issues.

And this is why I’m in the Legislature—to care about these progressive issues, and to care about in particular, poor people. So when you had homecare workers which—David Rolf and I went through a lot together for many years. He and I could share stories where we worked together to get collective bargaining for homecare workers. Very important concept, very important victory.

But sometimes, you know, you have to do things by initiative, because the legislature doesn’t want to do it. Let me give you another example. Way before I was in the legislature, the labor folks were very frustrated about the minimum wage in the state. So I worked with a number of folks to propose Initiative—I forgot the number of it—I’ll have to get back to you on that number, but we did two initiatives for the minimum wage. To raise it.

So the first one was to raise it to a certain level, and the second one was to raise it to another level and make it tied to the [cost of living]. The kickoff for that initiative: at my food bank, my nonprofit agency. And I was very proud to be standing there right next to Rick Bender and the rest of them. Jeff Johnson and the rest. David Rolf came later.

So we have the best minimum wage in the nation. It is high-level, and it’s tied to [the cost of living]. We were the first in the nation to do it. At the time, this is when I was in the legislature, the legislature just did not do it.

So, we use whatever methods we can to achieve progressive goals.