4
SEIU allegedly forging its members’ signatures ......... San Bernardino County sued over records request ...
5
Governor Inslee booed off stage over mask order .....
7
AUGUST 2020
LIVING LIBERTY A Publication of the Freedom Foundation
Withe discusses opt-out campaign, COVID abuses on Mike Huckabee’s national TV show
Electronic Service Requested
Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507
F
ormer Arkansas governor and two-time presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who served as guest speaker last year at the Freedom Foundation’s Oregon banquet, returned the favor on June 20, asking National Director Aaron Withe to appear as a guest on his Trinity Broadcasting Network talk show. In a wide-ranging interview, Withe discussed the Freedom Foundation’s traditional role as a watchdog over government employee unions, as well as its recent work challenging governors anxious to enhance their powers on the pretense of battling the COVID-19 virus. “(The Freedom Foundation) has been fair enough about saying, if you want to join a union and you want your union dues to go to liberal politicians, you have every right to do that,” Huckabee noted. “But you’re also telling people if they don’t, they can say, ‘I don’t want to participate.’” “The Supreme Court made a decision two years ago in Janus v. AFSCME that allowed public employees to opt out of their union and stop paying dues,” Withe said. “The problem is, all across the country, people are still unaware of their rights. Who’s going to tell them? The government isn’t going to tell them, and the union certainly isn’t. “It takes a group like ours to actually go
By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor
out and tell workers they can leave their union,” he said. “What happens when people find out they can keep their money in their own pockets instead of handing it over to union bosses who often live rather large?” Huckabee asked. “When we speak to people face to face, 40 percent will opt out on the spot,” Withe answered. “The problem is, we have to talk to each and every public employee in the country to tell them they have these rights,” he said. “On top of that, you have the unions making it so difficult for people to get out. We have hundreds of people we’re representing in lawsuits who just haven’t been allowed to leave the union.” Huckabee then switched gears, noting that the Freedom Foundation has “had some battles of late with (Washington) Gov. Jay Inslee over the Coronavirus.” “Inslee was cooking the books about the COVID death rate in Washington state,” Withe responded. “What we actually come to find is that 13 percent of the people reported to have died of the Coronavirus actually died of something unrelated. “The state admitted there were people who died of gunshot wounds being counted as COVID deaths just because they had tested positive for the disease at one time,” he said. Withe concluded by characterizing Inslee’s mandatory mask rule as a “complete overreach. You can’t make this stuff up.” “The Freedom Foundation does some pretty awazing stuff,” Huckabee acknowledged.
VOLUME 31, ISSUE 8
Our mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.
Publisher: Tom McCabe Editor: Jeff Rhodes
CONTACT Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482 FreedomFoundation.com
“Quote” ~ of the month ~
[2 ]
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION O F THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
CONTENTS PAGE 4
PAGE 3
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
LEADERSHIP MEMO
By JONATHAN HARSH Reprinted from the CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER
By TOM McCABE We won’t forget about unions while we’re battling governors abusing their emegency powers.
SEIU allegedly forging signatures to keep collecting ‘members’ ’ dues.
PAGE 5
By JEFF RHODES Freedom Foundation takes full-page ad in Seattle Times demanding apology from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.
What They Said & What They Meant
LITIGATING FREEDOM By BOB WICKERS Freedom Foundation sues San Bernardino (Calif.) County over refusal to honor request for information.
PAGES 6 & 7
Mask Melodrama
Inslee’s illegal orders make him the subject of Freedom Foundation lawsuit, jeering crowds in Tri-Cities.
PAGE 9
PAGE 8
“I don’t recall saying we wanted to get rid of unions. What we want to get rid of is the inability of a person to leave a union if he wants to. As a worker, you have every right to join a union. If that’s what you want, pay your dues and be grateful. But if you don’t want to give money to candidates you can’t stand and causes that defile your values, you ought to have a right to opt out. ”
OREGON UPDATE
SPOTLIGHT ON CALIFORNIA
By JASON DUDASH New filing in election law case reveals Our Oregon’s hypocrisy for all to see.
By SAMUEL COLEMAN SEIU 1000 continues to hemorrhage members during difficult times. By BOB WICKERS Reprinted from the CALIFORNIA GLOBE Butterfly effect of Janus on its second anniversary offers California hope amid chaos.
By MIKE NEARMAN Public employee unions mourn death of Blaine Amendments.
PAGE 10
FREEDOM IN ACTION Slidewaters Closing
MIKE HUCKABEE,
Former Arkansas Governor Responding to an irate letter in response to Freedom Foundation National Director Aaron Withe’s appearance on his weekly television program. June 27, 2020
Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the election of any elected official or candidate.
Freedom Foundation’s Friends, Foes Weigh in On Our Actions.
PAGE 11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS
By MAXFORD NELSEN Reprinted from the DENVER POST Collective bargaining for public employees a big win for unions, but a major setback for taxpayers, workers.
PAGE 12
ACTION TIMELINE
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
We won’t forget about unions while we’re battling governors abusing their emergency powers
O
ur union foes will never concede the point, but the backbone of the Freedom Foundation’s funding has never come from large, out-of-state foundations. It comes from individuals — a significant percentage of whom are small business owners. Why? For one thing, they understand the concept of return on investment. Just as they’re committed to delivering the best product or service to their own customers and clients, their support for the Freedom Foundation is based on the expectation that our association will yield tangible, quantifiable results when it comes to safeguarding their Constitutional rights to earn a living and enjoy the fruits of their own labor. But the resemblance doesn’t end there. Small business owners also recognize they’re not a huge conglomerate producing a range of products. Their business model demands that they do one thing, and do it very well. A cabinet maker doesn’t branch into financial planning. The owner of the financial planning company doesn’t build apartments, and an apartment builder doesn’t flip burgers. I’m always amazed by think tanks whose leaders believe they’re an exception to this basic rule of commerce. They start off with a realistic mission statement, but the minute a donor dangles a check in return for research or advocacy in an area near and dear to his or her heart, the think tank can’t resist the temptation to diversify. Before long, instead of being recognized as the go-to agency for, let’s say, taxes and budgets, the organization is offering watered-down advice on property rights, education, healthcare, the environment and lots of others. When I took over at the Freedom Foundation in 2014, I vowed not to make that mistake. At the time, the organization had something like 14 presumed areas of expertise, but that changed almost immediately. Within days, the Freedom Foundation had just one job — going after government employee unions. And we did it better than anyone else in the country. We knew it, and so did the unions, since we’ve been directly responsible for helping more than 75,000 government employees win their freedom in just the past two years. We became a national player, going from perhaps two dozen people trying to be experts on 14 subjects to around 80 all focused like a laser on public-sector unions. Then came COVID. This spring, we made the decision to peel off some of our resources to battle the response to what’s being promoted as a once-in-a-lifetime threat to our collective health. In fact, as the weeks roll by, it’s looking more and more like a generational threat to our freedom. Government at the state and local levels has used the COVID scare to steal your liberty. And because Americans are fundamentally good people who want to do the right thing, too many are letting it happen without putting up a fight. Because of the urgency and historical significance, we concentrated our focus on three areas: n COVID death numbers. Probably lots of states are fudging the number of people actually dying of the COVID-19 virus, but we managed
3
MEMO
|
to catch Washington health authorities red-handed at it when Labor Policy Director By TOM McCABE, CEO Max Nelsen discovered they were counting everyone who tested positive for the disease and eventually died as a COVID death. Under this crooked accounting scheme, Inslee was able to exaggerate the problem by about 13 percent. When questioned by the media about the discrepancy, Inslee loudly criticized the Freedom Foundation, then quietly ordered the DOH to change its reporting methodology. n Unfair penalties on business owners who defy stay-home orders. Again in Washington, the Freedom Foundation took the side of entrepreneurs punished by the state for simply trying to earn a living. Our signature cause was Slidewaters, Chelan’s popular water park, which defied state orders and opened in June for its summer season. Freedom Foundation attorneys were denied a temporary injunction by a local federal court judge, but a few days later Chelan County’s health department gave the park a clean bill of health and Slidewaters’ 150 employees were poised to open its doors. Within hours, however, Inslee’s Department of Labor and Industries — whose authority to act as the governor’s enforcement arm was already the subject of a related Freedom Foundation lawsuit — overruled county officials and ordered the facility closed. It remained open for about a month but but was finally shut down on July 20. (See story, page 1). n Face masks. Meanwhile, with COVID death numbers — the real ones, that is — by June plunging dramatically nearly everywhere in the state, Inslee exploited a spike in new cases reported mostly in Yakima to impose a statewide mandate requiring Washingtonians to wear face-covering masks for all public gatherings. And rather than simply leaving enforcement up to the affected business, he followed up with a second directive ordering businesses to refuse service to anyone not wearing a mask. Leaving aside the question of whether the governor has the authority to impose such a decree (hint: he doesn’t), we believe the order is a massive First Amendment violation, with Washington residents being required to demonstrate tacit support for Inslee’s policy and the junk science on which it’s based. It’s an ambitious strategy, but we know how to multitask. While earning national praise for our COVID response, we still managed to file 11 union-related lawsuits and help 1,200 union members win their freedom in the past month alone. If Jay Inslee and his cohorts truly had the welfare of this country at heart, they’d have no greater ally than the Freedom Foundation. But if they’re capitalizing on fear and ruining the lives of hardworking Americans in order to consolidate their political power, they can expect exactly what we’re giving them ... and there’s more where that came from.
LEADERSHIP
LIVING LIBERTY
D O S O M E T H I N G F O R F R E E D O M T O D AY
SUPPORT THE FIGHT!
The Freedom Foundation is the only organization on the West Coast that
takes on the hard fights. Every day we stand up to ensure freedom for future generations. Every gift is an investment in the future.
CALL (360) 956-3482, OR VISIT WWW.FREEDOMFOUNDATION.COM
4
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
SEIU Allegedly Forging Signatures to Keep Collecting ‘Member’ Dues By JONATHAN HARSH Reprinted from the CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER June 14, 2020
A
t the end of March 2020, the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit watchdog group, filed five forgery lawsuits against local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in California, Oregon and Washington. According to the organization, local SEIU chapters have been forging signatures of state employees on union documents, including membership cards, to justify collecting union dues from their wages. The Freedom Foundation’s chief litigator Eric Stahlfeld stated, “These individual employees are completely unrelated but, taken collectively, they demonstrate a pattern or practice of the union cutting corners in a desperate attempt to retain members.” This practice hinges on the union practice of card checks, or using documents such as a signed membership cards to establish that state employees have agreed to union representation. The National Labor Relations Board uses the number of agreements or signatures to measure employee support of a union. Union chapters use signed membership cards to monitor the number of members and to identify from whose paychecks to deduct union dues and fees. However, these lawsuits against the SEIU demonstrate how easily a union can inflate its membership numbers through more deceptive means, such as forgery. In a recent lawsuit, Jill West, a state employee in the Oregon
Department of Health and Human Services, alleges her signature was forged. In October 2019, she attempted to resign her membership in the SEIU 503 local branch but was informed of a requirement to pay dues through August 2020 because of a signed membership card on file. The lawsuit continues that after seeing a screenshot of her electronic signature and seeking legal advice from the Freedom Foundation, she discovered that the membership form was signed from an IP address in Tacoma, Wash., using an email address she had never used. According to the Freedom Foundation’s website, West’s case is one of 12 forgery lawsuits that Freedom Foundation has taken up since 2019. In the case of Jill West and other state workers involved within these lawsuits, SEIU chapters failed to notify nonmembers that they cannot be forced to pay union dues per the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, et al. The Court ruled, “States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from non-consenting employees.” It further stated, “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay (the union).” The plaintiff in Semerjyan v. SEIU 2015, another lawsuit
filed by the Freedom Foundation, is a homecare provider in Los Angeles since 2003. She believed it was mandatory for SEIU 2015 to withdraw dues from her wages even though she was not a union member. Following the Janus ruling, Semerjyan filed an opt-out letter in October 2019 and demanded they halt withdrawing dues but was informed by the chapter that they had a membership card with her signature and thus would not permit her to opt-out until March 2020. After receiving a copy of the union card at her request, she claimed that it was clearly a forged signature on the card. One lawsuit ended on May 29, 2019, when the SEIU 775 union chapter made an out-ofcourt settlement with Cindy Ochoa, a Washington state homecare provider that left the chapter in 2014. In her lawsuit, filed on October 2018 with the help of the Freedom Foundation, Ochoa sought compensation for lost wages and emotional distress due to her signature being forged on a membership card in 2016 and union dues having been removed from her checks. Her initial decision to leave the chapter followed a U.S Supreme Court decision in Harris v Quinn in 2014. The Court ruled that nonunion homecare providers could not be forced to pay union dues. In the settlement, SEIU 775 agreed to pay Ochoa $15,000 in damages, pay $13,000 to the Freedom Foundation to cover legal fees, and provide a handwritten apology to Ochoa. Such instances of nonunion members having their sig-
Freedom Foundation takes full-page ad demanding apology from Inslee
H
oping to ignite a few early fireworks, the Freedom Foundation on July 3 purchased a full-page ad in the Seattle Times demanding an apology from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee for his derisive comments toward the organization. The dustup started several weeks earlier when reporters attending the governor’s regular May 18 press conference surprised him with something other than the customary softball questions. Inslee was asked if he’d seen a Freedom Foundation report issued earlier the same morning chronicling how Washington’s Department of Health was systematically exaggerating the number of COVID-19 deaths in this state by as much as 13 percent by classifying everyone who tested positive for the virus and later died as a
By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor
COVID fatality — regardless of the actual cause of death. Clearly flummoxed, Inslee didn’t let the fact that he didn’t know what he was talking about keep him from indulging in an ad hominem attack. Inslee brushed off the Freedom Foundation’s painstakingly detailed reoport as “disgusting” and “malarkey.” “With the cameras rolling,” the Seattle Times ad notes, “you further accused the Freedom Foundation of ‘fanning these conspiracy claims from Planet Pluto’ and not caring about the lives lost to COVID-19.” However, less than a month later — without mentioning the
Freedom Foundation by name, the Department of Health conceded it was indeed overcounting the number of COVID deaths and pledged to change its reporting methodology. “If you can belittle the Freedom Foundation ... on a statewide stage,” the ad text continued, “the least you owe us now is to use the same bully pulpit to admit you were wrong. And apologize.” Needless to say, no apology was issued. “We didn’t expect one,” said Freedom Foundation National Director Aaron Withe. “Jay Inslee has about as much use for honor as he does for scientific fact — which is, none at all. Why would we be surprised by yet another example?”
natures forged as well as the unions’ failure to inform employees of their rights under Janus underscore some problems with the union card check system. The Supreme Court had expressed concerns with the practice in NLRB v. Gissel Packing in 1969, commenting that card checking was “inherently unreliable” due to the “natural inclination of most people to avoid stands that appear to be nonconformist and antagonistic to friends and fellow employees.” On June 3, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Josephine Staton dismissed a lawsuit by California homecare provider Maria Quezambra with the assistance of Freedom Foundation against the United Domestic Workers of America. Quezambra claimed her signature had been forged on a union membership card and was compelled to pay dues despite not being a member of the union, arguing her First Amendment rights had been violated when the state deducted the dues from her wages. Judge Staton rejected Quezambra’s argument, ruling “the union cannot be fairly characterized as a state actor” and “the California state officials and Orange County are not responsible for the specific conduct of which Quezambra complains.” These lawsuits indicate that the practice of using card checks to monitor union membership is flawed and enables unions to manipulate unsuspecting state employees. This is apparent in these SEIU chapters purportedly engaging in fraud to maintain the flow of union dues, but the number of forgery lawsuits being filed by the Freedom Foundation seems to indicate that workers are pushing back. However, Judge Staton’s ruling suggest many legal hurdles lie ahead.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
LITIGATING FREEDOM We have to Keep public Employee Contact info out of the wrong hands.
5
What They
&
What They What she said: “The Freedom Foundation is the deep state. When they accuse, it means that’s what they’re doing.” What she meant: “In fact,
Freedom Foundation Sues San Bernardino County Over Information Request Denial
U
nder California’s Public Records Act, public agencies have an obligation to honor every document request unless there is a specific exemption in state law for the information being sought. And the burden of proof is on the agency to justify any refusal to comply. But a lawsuit filed on Monday accuses San Bernardino County of systematically refusing to hand over contact information about public employees because it knows the group making the request is on a mission to inform the workers about a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that recognizes their right to opt out of union membership, dues and fees. “Public records laws exist to ensure government agencies are transparent and accountable,” said Shella Sadovnik, an attorney with the Freedom Foundation, which has been trying to obtain the documents since March 12. “They were not created to protect the monopoly labor unions have traditionally enjoyed in the public workplace.” The Freedom Foundation, with offices in California, Oregon, Washington, Ohio and Pennsylvania, has a vigorous outreach program whose goal is to educate government employees about Janus v. AFSCME, a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming that compulsory support of a labor union — whether through member dues or so-called “agency fees” charged to nonmembers — is a violation of the First Amendment. But in order to inform the workers, the Freedom Foundation must first know who they are and how to reach them. Basic contact information — such as the worker’s full name, birthdate, work email, etc. — has always been public, since the employees are paid by state taxes. In fact, it was readily provided to the unions, who use it for organizing purposes. But in the wake of Janus, the unions stand to lose billions in dues revenues if public employees suddenly realize membership and dues are now voluntary. Consequently, they’re exerting considerable pressure on public agencies to deny workers’ contact information to organizations like the Freedom Foundation, which hope to spread a message that unions don’t want their members to hear.
By BOB WICKERS, California Director
In the San Bernardino lawsuit, county personnel officials responded to the Freedom Foundation information request by insisting they do not maintain records of which employees are represented by a union — even though the state deducts dues from the workers’ paychecks and forwards the money to their respective union. Further, the county asserts: n the records fall under a public-interest exemption; n the disclosure of contact details would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the workers’ personal privacy; and, n it could expose workers to safety concerns. “All of their objections are bogus,” Sadovnik said. “First, the burden is on the public agency to show the public’s need for nondisclosure,” she explained. “The county has provided no such reason. Further, the Freedom Foundation is not seeking personnel, medical or private employee files, so the privacy concerns are inapplicable in this case. Nor are there any safety issues when you’re providing already-public information.” The lawsuit, filed in San Bernardino Superior Court, lists San Bernardino County as the lone defendant and seeks release of the requested documents plus a declaration from the county admitting it erred in withholding them. A similar lawsuit was filed May 12 by the Freedom Foundation in Sacramento Superior Court against CalHR, and the state of California to obtain publicly disclosable information — under the California Public Records Act. “Public records laws assume everything a government does is open to scrutiny unless there’s a good reason it shouldn’t be,” Sadovnik said. “Keeping government employees in the dark about their rights so their union can continue to plunder their paychecks isn’t a good reason.”
this statement was made in reference to a Freedom SALLY KOCH Foundation Portland, Ore, study revealing Facebook post, June 30, 2020 that the state of Washington was overstating the number of COVID-19 deaths by up to 13 percent. The report was criticized by unions and their friends on the left, but the state’s Department of Health later conceded it was doing exactly what the Freedom Foundation said, and quietly changed its reporting methodology.” n n n What she said: “Get rid of the Freedom Foundation. They’re trying to break unions. They’re evil.” What she meant: “Get rid of by what means? This is either a call to use the instrument of government to legislate SHERRIE HASS the unions’ Spokane, Wash. political Facebook post, June 31, 2020 opponents out of existence or it’s a naked threat of violence. Either way, it makes a liar out of me when I say the Freedom Foundation is evil.” n n n What she said: “Has anyone put faces and names to members of the Freedom Foundation?” What she meant: “For starters, there’s the staff page on the Freedom Foundation’s NORMA website, which BRENNFLECK proudly lists the Vancouver, Wash. Facebook post name and job June 28, 2020 title of every Freedom Foundation employee, along with a short bio and a photo. By contrast, the union-backed Northwest Accountability Project, on whose Facebook page I posted my comments, lists only one name. The question is, why would anyone need to know what Freedom Foundation members looked like unless they were planning retaliation?”
6
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
Dems face credibility gap over COVID rules By VALERIE RICHARDSON Reprinted from the WASHINGTON TIMES July 8, 2020
F
or three weeks, Seattle officials allowed hundreds of protesters to take over a six-block area of Capitol Hill that included Cal Anderson Park, but Shella Sadovnik still isn’t allowed to take her child to the local playground. “Apparently, my toddler is much more dangerous (than protesters),” said Ms. Sadovnik, a Seattle-based lawyer for the Freedom Foundation. “I guess all the law-abiding people have to be subject to all these restrictions, but if you’re protesting and looting and rioting, that’s OK. You don’t spread coronavirus.” The mass protests after George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police have largely faded, but nobody’s forgotten how scores of mostly liberal governors and local officials cheered and even marched alongside demonstrators, often in defiance of social-distancing rules designed to slow the spread of the pandemic. The result has been simmering public skepticism, particularly on the right, over the necessity of the lockdowns and other restrictions, or what Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, an associate professor at UCLA’s Geffen School of Medicine, called the “the coronavirus credibility gap.” “(P)olitical leaders and health officials have sown distrust by politicizing the pandemic response,” Dr. Ladapo said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Political leaders and health officials have often invoked ‘science’ to justify decisions manifestly guided by their personal preferences. That costs them credibility.” Phil Kerpen, president of the free-market advocacy group American Commitment, pointed to the rapid-fire shift in focus by politicians and public health authorities from COVID-19 to the George Floyd pro-
tests and then back to COVID-19. “The same supposed so-called experts who tried every scare tactic in the world to say that if you take a step outside, you’re going to kill everybody’s grandparents, and all of these draconian restrictions are necessary — they then went and literally participated in protest events with massive, massive crowds of thousands of people,” Mr. Kerpen said. Governors of states with some of the tightest restrictions, including Democrats Phil Murphy of New Jersey, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, joined the protests in early June, wearing masks but not always social distancing, as shown in photos. “With little social distancing, Whitmer marches with protesters,” said a June 4 headline in the Detroit News. The alleged double-standard has emerged as an issue in litigation. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) brought up Nevada Gov. Steve’s Sisolak’s participation in a June 19 Black Lives Matter protest in a challenge to the Democrat’s reopening order on churches. Under the order, churches cannot hold services with more than 50 attendees even though restaurants, casinos and theme parks have been allowed to reopen at 50% capacity, which the ADF described as a disparate treatment. “What’s funny about all this is that we have a First Amendment right under the free-exercise clause to practice our religion in churches,” said ADF senior counsel John Bursch. “The Constitution does not protect your right to gamble at a casino, to eat at a restaurant, to frolic at a theme park, and yet those are the activities that are being given preferential treatment under the governor’s order.”
In Washington, Ms. Sadovnik said her organization, the Freedom Foundation, has been working overtime to represent businesses and individuals challenging the state’s restrictions. The foundation filed a lawsuit against Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s “no mask, no service” order on Tuesday, the same day the mandate went into effect, arguing that the state is “essentially compelling (residents) to support junk science in violation of their freedom of conscience.” The lawsuit cited a May 21 study in the New England JourI nal of Medicine that said wearing DAV AN cloth masks outside a health-care By I facility “offers little, if any, prot we Las icy l tection from infection,” while the o lic p eha Democratic governor argued that the on b to mandate would protect public health. tion ivil “This is something that can save of c lives,” Mr. Inslee said. “There is nothing in the constitution that says people should die of a virus. It’s just not there. And anybody can file a lawsuit, but so far courts have upheld.” Aaron Withe, national director of the Freedom Foundation, said the order was particularly galling given Mr. Inslee’s treatment of protesters and rioters. “The face-covering directive is the definition of government overreach,” said Mr. Withe. “If people choose to wear a mask,
rn e v Go sev no- ct effe
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
7
Inslee booed off stage over mask order Reprinted from the YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC June 30, 2020 (PASCO, Wash.) — Washington Gov. Jay Inslee was heckled and had to cut short his speech Tuesday on battling the coronavirus pandemic in Eastern Washington. Speaking outdoors at Columbia Basin College in Pasco, Inslee was repeatedly interrupted by hecklers as he urged residents to wear masks to prevent the spread of the virus. “Open it up,’’ one heckler shouted in an apparent reference to widespread business closures in the Tri-Cities of Richland, Pasco and Kennewick. The community is still in Stage I of the pandemic, which means most businesses are shut down. The heckling continued as a masked Inslee spoke. Finally the Democratic governor, who used to represent the Tri-Cities in the U.S.
House, had had enough. “We’re going to go inside,’’ he said. Once inside, Inslee resumed his comments, and wondered why people continued to question the effectiveness of masks. “We need to pull together,’’
Inslee says mandatory face masks can help slow spread of virus
Freedom Foundation files lawsuit, calls Inslee’s mask mandate ‘over-reach’
By ALFRED CHARLES July 7, 2020
ns filed a lawsuit A group of Washington citize n that challenges datio through the Freedom Foun governor’s order, saythe of lity the constitutiona to free speech. The ing it infringes on their right able and they beplaintiffs argue its unenforceevidence that masks lieve there is little scientific work. Lead attorney Shella Sadovnik said people who refuse to wear masks are being harassed, like she was. “I am 6 months pregfor me to breathe,” she nant and it’s very difficult mask is not an option for said. “So, wearing a face me.”
Lawsuit c hallenges
July 7, 2020
An advocacy gr oup has filed a lawsuit ch Washington’s m allenging and whether G ask mandate, ov and Secretary of ernor Inslee Wiesman have Health John th to issue such an e authority or The lawsuit w der. the Freedom Fo as filed by undation, a non-profit orga nization with offices in Washi ngton, Oregon, Ohio and California. According to its the Freedom Fo website, undation’s mission is to “a dv dividual liberty ance in, prise, and limite free enterable governmen d, accountt.” The organizatio equated the mas n has Washington to k mandate in “government Free-
Freedom F ou sues Wash ndation in masks ‘jun gton, calls k science’ RYAN J.
sk, s a o-m take n ’s r nor orde ngton i e vic Wash2020 pub nal suit o , i t 7 w t in — July tion, a nfialed a lnajunc- n
FARRICK — July 7, 2020 The Freedo m Fo un da over a recent tion is suing wear face m ly enacted order requiri Washington state asks ng residents to Washington in public. requires mas use both in k public places private busin and in Gov. Jay In esses. While state sle pects most re e says he exwithout thre sidents to comply enforcemen at of consequence, t refusing to of penalties for wear masks an option. remains However, th e Freedom Fo wh undation ha io ether state Gov. Jay s questioned ARD an i latJo nda pia, Inslee Wiesman ha Fou Olym eking the vio to hn EON ve sufficient and Secretary of Health L en m ac t constitutiona S e an o d in I d enforce su s r d . o l authority s e ch ru Their lawsui re base nian elief f t said F t, notes KO les. e ag o ai M nst the orde gt , th ion r’s enforcem O, requests an injunctio lain s “r ent. n eek izat ashin nt a omp
W ec me gan y or f sevenrequire ies,” th t o alf mask d liber the ts an h l rig
he said. “If we mask up, we can open up.’’ Inslee noted that a large number of TriCities leaders, including former U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, local politicians and physicians were all publicly urging people to wear masks. “No one voted for those people out in the courtyard today,” Inslee said of the protesters. “This is a pandemic,’’ the governor added. “Only a community response can be successful.’’ The Tri-Cities, located in southeastern Washington state, is one of the state’s COVID-19 hotspots. Benton and Franklin counties com bined have more than 3,000 confirmed cases of the virus and detected cases are rapidly growing. Inslee recently ordered that residents of Washington must wear masks when in public, and that has drawn intense criticism from some people.
dom Foundation
No-mask, no service rule takes effect
Last week, the Freedom Foundation, a national public policy organization based in Olympia, filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven Washingtonians seeking an injunction to the mask requirement as “relief for the violation of civil rights and liberties,” the complaint said.
tutionality of mask ordinances. In addition to requiring face masks, the governor’s “Anyone can file a lawsuit proc lamation also requires who wants to waste their employer cooperation with money, and we believe COVID-19 investigations we are in very firm conby public health authoristitutional and statutory ties and compliance with grounds,” Inslee said, citing any other orders or direcseveral previous resolutions tives. that upheld the consti-
8
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
We Just want to protect Election laws.
New filing in election law case reveals Our Oregon’s hypocrisy for all to see
I
By JASON DUDASH, Oregon Director
n an ironic gaffe, new documents filed by Our Oregon in U.S. District Court assert the union-backed nonprofit seeks to protect Oregon election laws by breaking them. The evidence comes by way of Our Oregon’s July 9 motion to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit against the Oregon Secretary of State, People Not Politicians v. Clarno, which challenges the secretary’s signature-gathering requirements for ballot initiatives during COVID-19. Our Oregon opposes the plaintiffs’ position that their petition should be granted additional time and a lower
Oregon Update
A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.
threshold of signatures due to the conditions brought on by the pandemic. The organization claims it is a “watchdog” of the process. In reality, it’s Our Oregon that needs to be watched. In the motion, Our Oregon claims it “is opposed to (the petition) and would be involved in organizing a campaign against it if it were to qualify for the Nov, 3, 2020 ballot.” (emphasis added). Even worse, an accompanying sworn declaration submitted by Our Oregon executive director Becca Uherbelau states that, “(A)llowing the Chief Petitioners to submit after the constitutional deadline (and at a lower threshold) would make it exponentially more difficult for Our Oregon, or anyone else, to organize an opposition campaign to IP 57. It takes months to build and fund a coalition in opposition to a ballot measure.” (emphasis added). What Our Oregon neglected to mention is that it’s not allowed to work on ballot measure campaigns without registering as a PAC — i.e, after a petition qualifies for the ballot — and it’s currently under investigation by the Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney general for doing exactly that. The Freedom Foundation has filed the new evidence with the Secretary of State to aid in her ongoing investigation. “We have accused Our Oregon of a lot of things, and rightfully so,” said Freedom Foundation Oregon Director Jason Dudash. “But we’ve never accused them of being the sharpest tools in the shed. They’ve essentially admitted to what we’ve accused them of in documents before a federal court.” “It’s an ironic twist that they’re posing as defending the Secretary of State at the same time that the Secretary is investigating them for their serial election law violations”.
Public unions mourn death of Blaine Amendments
I
n an opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down so-called Blaine Amendments present in many state laws and constitutions, including the Oregon Constitution. The obsolete language is the entirety of Article 1, Section 5, which reads “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religeous (sic), or theological institution, nor shall any money be appropriated for the payment of any religeous (sic) services in either house of the Legislative Assembly.” The decision, arising from the case of Espinoza et al. v. Montana Department of Revenue et al, allows states to create a voucher system of payment for K-12 education in which state funds can be used at private institutions of education, including those operated by religious bodies. Blaine Amendments have a dark history based in bigotry, discrimination and religious intolerance. As states were joining the union during the 19th century, Maine U.S. Sen. James G. Blaine — an anti-Catholic bigot — made sure their admittance was dependent on adoption of a law or section in their constitution that forbid state money from being disbursed to religious entities. At the time, almost all of non-pub-
By MIKE NEARMAN, Senior Fellow
lic education was run by the Catholic Church. Public education was very Protestant at the time, and these laws solidified their monopoly. Though created to give Protestants an advantage over Catholics, Blaine Amendment-type laws today serve a different monopoly — public teachers’ unions — and prevent legislation that would allow the money to “follow the student.” Roberts summarized the case in the first paragraph of the decision: “The Montana Legislature established a program to provide tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools. The program grants a tax credit to anyone who donates to certain organizations that, in turn, award scholarships to selected students attending such schools. When petitioners sought to use the scholarships at a religious school, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the program.” All but 10 states have some version of a Blaine Amendment or legislation
that was struck down by this decision. Unaffected states include Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia. In concluding his decision, Justice Roberts identifies this as a religious liberty issue. “(T)his Court has repeatedly upheld government programs that spend taxpayer funds on equal aid to religious observers and organizations, particularly when the link between government and religion is attenuated by private choices. A school, concerned about government involvement with its religious activities, might reasonably decide for itself not to participate in a government program. But we doubt that the school’s liberty is enhanced by eliminating any option to participate in the first place.” Look for a blossoming of state voucher programs in states that have legislatures friendly to this type of aid. Voucher programs are seen as particularly liberating to communities which are struggling economically, as they allow everyone to send their children to private schools, not just the wealthy.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
SEIU continues to hemorrhage members during difficult times
I
t isn’t often you see a union screw up so badly that hundreds of its members jump ship all at once. It’s certainly happened before. Case in point, the Freedom Foundation’s current lawsuit against CSLEA in which 130 lifeguards attempted to opt out in a single day. But it’s still uncommon. Unless you’re SEIU 1000, the largest union for state workers in California. As we recently chronicled, SEIU has a leadership problem and has been bleeding members — more than 5,000 in the last two years. During the past three months, more than 900 SEIU 1000 dues payers have severed their connection to the famously
By SAMUEL COLEMAN, Outreach Director
terrible union. But recently, and especially during June, public employees all over California are starting to feel the heat from COVID-related shutdowns. Take, for example, city of Santa Barbara employees, primarily unionized by SEIU, where 400 employees are facing layoffs due to budget deficits. Unions have long claimed they alone are looking out for public employees’ paychecks, but there’s a new sheriff in town — the individual em-
ployees are looking out for their own paycheck now. In the past month alone, more than 1,200 public employees in California have responded to the Freedom Foundation’s outreach and parted ways with their union. The message is simple — times are tough. Due to budget deficits, the failure of some of the most prominent unions in California to effectively bargain and falling tax revenues, public employees are looking at a bleak nearby future. But you don’t have to keep
The Butterfly Effect of Janus on its second anniversary offers California hope amid the chaos By BOB WICKERS Reprinted from the CALIFORNIA GLOBE As Americans grapple with a pandemic, economic collapse and riots, it seems an appropriate time to revisit a tenant of Chaos Theory — the so-called Butterfly Effect. The Butterfly Effect examines the possibility that a small event can have a profound impact — posing the hypothetical question, “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wing in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas?” While the origins of a tornado may be difficult to trace back to a single insect’s wing, we do know a virus infecting a single human being last year — over 6,000 miles away from California — resulted in a government-mandated shutdown of the largest state economy in the U.S., more than 2.5 million Californians out of work, and freedoms forfeited. But often, the butterfly effect brings hope rather than despair. When an Illinois public servant took a job as a child support specialist over a decade ago, he was forced — as a condition of employment — to pay dues to a government union he wasn’t even a member of and whose political agenda he didn’t agree with. This violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association. Mark Janus took that union — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) — to court in 2015 and, after lower court defeats and appeals, ultimately won a generational, game-changing victory in the highest court in the nation. This week marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which freed millions of public-sector workers throughout the country from union bondage. Here in California, Janus’ Butterfly Effect has been profound. My organization, the Freedom Foundation, has leveraged the ruling to help nearly 30,000 California workers leave their government union and stop having
paying the people who don’t give you anything in return. Opting out of union dues saves the average employee $800 per year and removes a small but meaningful amount of money from a private organization that never deserved it in the first place. For this reason, we’ve sent hundreds of thousands of emails to public employees across California letting them know how to give themselves their own stimulus package. On the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME (2018), we’re happy so many public employees are joining the celebration.
Spotlight on
California
dues deducted from their paychecks. This has significantly increased take-home pay for workers and their families, a much-needed income boost during a terrible economy, and cost unions over $25 million a year- forever. The Freedom Foundation recently completed a first-of-itskind comprehensive study of California government union membership in the first year after the Janus decision. To complete the study, we submitted 450 public records requests and spent more than 300 hours compiling information; analyzed payroll data from 74 school districts (including the state’s four largest districts) and nearly 100,000 state workers; and studied more than 100 U.S Department of Labor and IRS union compliance reports. The study found over 125,200 fewer government union dues-paying members in California one year after Janus, an 11 percent drop that cost unions an estimated $100 million in lost revenue – money they no longer can spend on political influence. More specifically: n Service Employees International Union (SEIU) & AFSCME county and municipal lost 42,200 members; n SEIU Local 1000 (California state employees) lost 35,700; n the California School Employees Association (CSEA) lost 31,000; and, n the California Teachers Association (CTA) lost 16,300 after already losing 19,000 members when the California Faculty Association dissociated from the CTA. More recently, the Freedom Foundation’s aggressive outreach and litigation efforts during Gov. Gavin Newsom’s shutdown of the California economy, combined with his promise of a 10 per-
A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Golden State.
cent pay cut for state employees and the undemocratic practices and poor leadership of Yvonne Walker, SEIU Local 1000’s president, has helped convince an additional 950 government workers to leave their union and keep more of what they earn. In two relatively short years, Janus has brought renewed freedom to over a million state, county, and municipal employees in California; giving them the right to choose — for the first time in more than four decades — whether to associate with, and financially support, a government union. And for California, Janus has provided real hope that we can one day level the playing field by breaking the stranglehold government unions have over our politicians, policies, and politics. This is just the beginning. Bob Wickers is the Freedom Foundation’s California director.
9
10
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
FREEDOM in ACTION
Slidewaters closing — for now News Release
W From Facebook: “Most of that is the fault of the Freedom Foundation. If government workers hadn’t been given the ability to opt out of forced deductions the public-sector unions wouldn’t have had to resort to forging signatures. Now, instead of a nice, comfortable Tammany Hall situation, they’re having to commit felonies in order to thrive.” — MICHAEL FARLEY
Emails:
– RAYMOND S., Wash. n
n
“I just heard about your victory regarding the ridiculous and mandatory mask order in Thurston County! Thank you for fighting for the people of Washington state. This news is not spreading fast enough; in fact it’s probably it’s being suppressed. We are being constantly oppressed by Inslee! We cannot fight him on our own! Please, please help the rest of Washington as his illegal “order” is statewide…” ANGELA S., Wash. n
n
n
“Three cheers for you! I heard someone from the Freedom Foundation on the radio the other day and I wanted to thank you for your awesome work.” – J. NOICE, Wash. n
n
n
“Thank you for filing a lawsuit against this b******t mask in public places nonsense.” – MICHAEL A., Wash.
us from the actions of … Jay Inslee and the Department of (L&I), we had no choice but to lay off our 150 employees and suspend our season.” Represented by the Freedom Foundation, they plan to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But it’s unlikely the case could be heard this summer, putting Slidewaters’ future in jeopardy. “This is great news for the state of Washington,” Inslee crowed at a press conference on June 16, announcing that the park will be fined $10,000 for defying his orders.
Collective bargaining for Colorado state employees a win for Big Labor, a major setback for taxpayers, workers By MAXFORD NELSEN Reprinted from the DENVER POST June 30, 2020
“Thank you for your continued efforts in getting to the truth, at nearly any cost. As an American citizen, I am grateful that there is someone out there watching the hen house.”
n
ashington Gov. Jay Inslee on July 20 took another huge step in his quest to make an example of anyone who dares question his COVID-19 edicts. The owners of Slidewaters, a popular water park situated on the banks of Lake Chelan in North-Central Washington, on July 10 were denied an injunction that would have allowed the facility to remain open pending a full hearing on the case. Cousins Burke and Robert
Bordner had opened the attraction more or less on time during June and had managed to keep it open for a month in defiance of Inslee’s stay-home edict. They had intended to defy the latest court ruling, too, but on July 16, Inslee’s Department of Labor and Industries issued a Notice of Immediate Restraint and a Citation and Notice of Assessment demanding Slidewaters close by July 20. In a written statement, the Bordners said, “(B)ecause of the additional harm and suffering being brought against
Gov. Jared Polis recently signed into law HB 20-1153, a long-sought union priority permitting collective bargaining by nearly 30,000 unionized state employees. While employees certainly deserve a voice in the workplace, HB 20-1153 is fundamentally a political move, passed along party-lines, designed to empower a permanent interest group propped up by taxpayers. Rep. Daneya Esgar, D-Pueblo, the bill’s sponsor, contended the legislation will let state workers “advocate for higher wages, better working conditions, and the well-being of themselves and their families through collective bargaining.” Of course, nothing prevented state workers from advocating for themselves and petitioning public officials just like any other interest or activist group. If anything, state employees already had special ability to petition government under an executive order issued by then-Gov. Bill Ritter in 2007 obligating the state to bargain with state employee unions over workplace matters. In reality, HB 20-1153 saddles state workers with an unaccountable, one-size-fits-all, onceand-for-all union. The legislation automatically recognizes Colorado WINS — the union that came to represent state workers under Ritter’s executive order — as employees’ sole representative. Further, the law places all covered employees in a single bargaining unit on behalf of which Colorado WINS will negotiate a single contract. To discourage unions from prioritizing certain employee groups over others in bargaining, labor laws typically have a government board define appropriate bargaining units so that employees in each perform similar work and share similar interests. Lumping all 30,000 state workers into a single unit is a recipe for union leadership to play favorites at the bargaining table. Unfortunately, employees have little recourse should they eventually sour on Colorado WINS’s representation. The law provides the union can only be decertified during a 30-day period every four years. Just calling for a vote requires getting a third of the bargaining unit — more than 10,000 people — to petition for decertification or a different union. Think of it as a state-sanctioned monopoly designating Colorado WINS as the sole provid
er of workplace representation to state workers, indefinitely. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, individual employees dissatisfied with the union can at least refuse to support it financially. But HB 20-1153 undermines that constitutional right, too. The law grants the union access to new-hire orientations so it can pressure employees into signing up for membership. It also requires the state to furnish employees’ personal contact information — including home address, phone numbers, and emails — to the union. Even if an employee opts-out of the automatic data sharing, the union stills receive their work contact information. Most insidiously, the bill requires the state to deduct union dues directly from employees’ paychecks. Payroll deduction of union dues is a relic of the industrial age rendered largely obsolete by credit cards and electronic fund transfers and, in government, means taxpayers subsidize union fundraising. Its main purpose is to maximize unions’ ability to collect dues by minimizing employees’ control over their own paychecks. For instance, HB 20-1153 lets the union secure dues deduction authorizations from employees in writing, electronically or even telephonically at any time. To cancel dues withholdings, however, employees must object in writing to the union — not the state, which actually processes the deductions — during an annual 30-day window. Beyond the obvious double-standard, other states that have similarly given unions control over their payroll systems have already experienced abuse as blatant as unions forging employees’ signatures on membership forms. Also concerning is that the law exempts union contract negotiations from normal state open government rules, meaning taxpayers can’t observe negotiations or review bargaining proposals, even though they must fund and live with the results. That the governor will bargain behind-closed-doors with a union that endorsed and heavily invested in his election campaign makes the arrangement even more unseemly. While a victory for Big Labor, Colorado’s state workers and taxpayers will grapple with the fallout from HB 20-1153 for decades to come. Maxford Nelsen is labor policy director for the Freedom Foundation.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
11
FREEDOM in the NEWS ON AIR
July 7, 2020
New lawsuit challenges Washington state’s mask mandate “A lawsuit filed in Washington state is challenging the new government order requiring everyone in the state to wear a face covering in public places and private businesses to slow the spread of coronavirus.The suit, filed by the Freedom Foundation on behalf of a group of citizens, questions whether Gov. Jay Inslee and Secretary of Health John John Wiesman have the constitutional authority to mandate people wearing masks in public and on private property.” IN PRINT
July 8, 2020
Immunity for youths should be the goal “Thank heaven for the Freedom Foundation, which has filed a lawsuit against this ridiculous order. According to a recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from (COVID-19) infection … In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
ON
ON AIR
July 7, 2020
Freedom Foundation files suit, calls Washington mask mandate ‘government overreach’ “An advocacy group has filed a lawsuit challenging Washington’s mask mandate, and whether Gov. Jay Inslee and Secretary of Health John Wiesman have the authority to issue such an order. The lawsuit was filed by the Freedom Foundation, a non-profit organization with offices in Washington, Oregon, Ohio and California.” IN PRINT
July 8, 2020
WSU Begins Analyzing COVID-19 Samples, as Testing Supplies Run Short and Results Lag “On the day the statewide mandate went into effect, the Freedom Foundation, a conservative organization, announced it was filing a lawsuit questioning the state’s authority to issue such an order. The face covering directive is the definition of government overreach,” Aaron Withe, the foundation’s national director, said in a news release.”
State of the Unions: Two Years After Janus By AARON WITHE Reprinted from REDSTATE.com June 30, 2020
I
t’s been exactly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court made its landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME. And to no one’s surprise, government unions have done everything possible to behave as though it never happened. Janus affirmed the constitutional right of every government employee in the country to opt out of their union and stop paying dues and fees. Prior to the ruling, public employees like teachers and bureaucrats were forced to pay dues to a union regardless of their wishes. Labor bosses claimed Janus was President Trump’s attack on working families. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) President Lee Saunders described the ruling as “… a purely political attack on the freedoms of working people. The true motivation behind this case is to satisfy the agenda of wealthy and powerful political donors who have spent tens of millions of dollars to, as they have said in their own words, ‘defund and defang’ the American labor movement.” What Saunders failed to mention are the steps his union is taking to prevent working families from exercising their rights. In the two years since Janus, AFSCME and other government unions have created various schemes to silence the voices of workers who wished to leave their union. First, Saunders ran an aggressive propaganda campaign to intimidate any public employee thinking about leaving his or her union. He labeled them “free-riders” and encouraged shop stewards to publicize their
names so co-workers would know who to ostracize. He then attacked my organization, the Freedom Foundation, for informing public employees about their rights under Janus. Government unions, like Saunders’ AFSCME, have filed frivolous lawsuits, worked with their elected cronies to change laws targeting the Freedom Foundation, set up shell organizations to attack our staff and board members, protested our events and even mailed our staff’s neighbors and stalked them at their homes. These intimidation tactics are simply an unsuccessful effort to prevent us from informing public employees that they can leave their unions. Why are the unions so worried? Because when people learn their rights, they opt out in droves. To prevent as many defections as possible, union leaders hid fine print in new membership cards only permitting employees to opt out during a 10-day annual window. They then mobilized union operatives to pressure government employees to sign them — if possible, without disclosing what they were signing. Some refused to sign. No matter. The Freedom Foundation has documented dozens of cases in which the union officials simply forged their signatures on membership cards and submitted them anyway. Despite the unions’ best efforts, the Freedom Foundation has been able to successfully run a robust opt-out campaign and sue unions for their illegal activities. And the results have been overwhelming.
“While government unions in other parts of the country have largely avoided huge membership losses thanks to shady tactics and pro-union governors, the Freedom Foundation has proven a dedicated effort to inform, defend and free public employees can succeed.” In Oregon alone, more than a third of all state employees have left the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and more than 35 percent of classified school employees have left the local American Federation of Teachers (AFT). In Washington State, more than 29 percent of state employees have left AFSCME. Tens of thousands of public employees in California have left their government unions because of our aggressive outreach. In the last three months alone, nearly 1,000 SEIU 1000 public employees have fled their sinking union. While government unions in other parts of the country have largely avoided huge membership losses thanks to shady tactics and friendly pro-union governors, the Freedom Foundation has proven a dedicated effort to inform, defend and free public employees can succeed. Aaron Withe is the National Director of the Freedom Foundation, a free-market organization committed to helping free public-sector employees from union tyranny.
12
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
ACTION TIMELINE SPOTLIGHTING SOME OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION’S NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PAST MONTH June 21 Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who served as guest speaker at the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquet last year in Oregon, returns the favor by inviting National Director Aaron Withe to appear on June 21 as a guest on his TBN talk show. June 23 Washington’s “invasive,” “coercive” and “unprecedented” directive requiring residents to wear a mask or equivalent face covering in public places is challenged by a Freedom Foundation lawsuit arguing the state cannot compel citizens to meekly support whatever newest guess the government is making when responding to the COVID-19 virus. Filed in Lewis County Superior Court on Wednesday by the Freedom Foundation on behalf of seven state residents, the action targets the face coverings order issued on June 24 by Washington Secretary of Health Dr. John Wiesman. The order — ostensibly issued to slow the spread of COVID — requires
every person in Washington state (to) wear a face covering that covers their nose and mouth when in any indoor or outdoor public setting.”
Department of Health was inflating the number of state residents who had died of the COVID-19 virus, the governor publicly denounced the organization and called the study “malarkey.” With a month, DOH announced it was, in fact, exaggerating the number of COVID deaths and promised to change its reporting methodology. Inslee, however, never apologized.
July 3 The Freedom Foundation buys a full-page ad in the Seattle Times demanding an apology from Gov. Jay Inslee. Several weeks earlier, after being asked about a Freedom Foundation study detailing how Washington’s
For two raucous years, from 2017 to 2019, Sarah Huckabee Sanders exposed the bias and corruption of the mainstream media as no presidential spokesperson ever had before.
For two eagerly anticipated nights, as keynote speaker for the Freedom Foundation’s annual Washington and Oregon annual banquests, she’ll recall her experiences and maybe take a swipe at the abuses of government-employee unions while she’s at it.
Be there for all the fun.
Oct. 9, 2020
Hyatt Regency Bellevue Bellevue, Wash.
Oct. 10, 2020
Marriott Portland Downtown Waterfront Portland, Ore.
On July 1 and 2, 123 California public employees earned their freedom and opted out of their government unions thanks to the Freedom Foundation.
July 16
July 9 Freedom Foundation attorney Shella Sadovnik appears on “Global Hanglout,” on online production of NBC News, discussing mandatory facemask laws like the one the Freedom Foundation has filed a lawsuit against in Washington. Sadovnik, who is six months pregnant and can’t breathe wearing a mask, argues
SARAH!
BY THE NUMBERS
the order recklessly exposes her to public scorn when she refuses to comply and violates her First Amendment rights to disagree with the shaky science on which it is based.
June 30 Marion County (Ore.) public employee filed the latest in a growing number of lawsuits accusing government employee labor unions of forging signatures on membership documents in order to continue deducting dues against her wishes.It is the fourth forgery case the Freedom Foundation has litigated against SEIU 503 in Oregon, and the 12th such case in this state plus Washington and California over the past two years.
the order needlessly subjects her
Slidewaters, a popular waterpark in Washington’s Chelan County, announces it will lay off its 150 employees and close its doors — possibly forever — after being notified by the state’s Department of Labor and Industries it will be fined $10,000 for defying Gov. Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 shutdown order. Its owners, Blake and Robert Bordner, are also threatened with jail time if the park remains open after July 20. Represented by Freedom Foundation lawyers, the Bordners were denied in their quest for an injunction to keep the park open pending a full hearing on the case. The case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.