S E I U 7 7 5 A C C U S E D O F U N F A I R L A B O R P R A C T I C E [ 5 ] B E L G A U A P P E A L T O S C O T U S L I K E LY [ 7 ] T E A C H E R S ’ U N I O N S B L E E D M E M B E R S , M O N E Y [ 1 0 ]
LIVINGLIBERTY A PUBLICATION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION | JANUARY 2019
SPREADING CHEER
CANVASSERS DRESSED AS SANTA VISIT GOV’T OFFICES
Electronic Service Requested
Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507
W
ho doesn’t welcome a visit from Santa? Certainly not public employees, who traditionally love to cavort with the version deployed by the Freedom Foundation to government office buildings in Washington, Oregon and California bearing union opt-out forms that can mean a Christmas present worth up to $1,000 a year in saved dues money. St. Nick and his helpers made their usual rounds this week in all three states, plus our newest home in Ohio, receiving a warm reception for both man and message. Who didn’t enjoy the Santa canvassing? Unions, of course. In fact, over the years they’ve been guilty of some downright Grinch-like behavior, ordering building security officers to escort the canvassers off taxpayer-funded properties because the union bosses can’t stand the thought of their members learning the truth about their rights to decline to line union pockets. In Ohio, for example, one union representative began walking up to public employees who’d just spoken with Freedom Foundation Santa canvassers and snatched the printed materials the employees were being given right out of their hands. Freedom Foundation canvassers even got the attention of Wendy Conway, president of the Washington Federation of State Employees/AFSCME Local 443.
By ASHLEY VARNER VP for COMMUNICATIONS
She sent an email to public employees “in solidarity” with WFSE members warning about a “bad Santa” appearing at worksites in Olympia and Tacoma. Betraying the authoritarian streak of its authors, the union “caution” email barks marching orders to public employees on how to respond when they see a friendly Santa outside their workplace: n Let (Santa) know you don’t wish to work for less. Be aware that if you engage in conversation they may record you and post it online. n You have the right to be removed from their contact list. If you are contacted after requesting removal, call the Member Connection Center. n If you feel unsafe, contact the authorities. Never mind that Freedom Foundation canvassers offer only friendly faces and information, or that canvassers have needed to be trained to record hostile interactions after union leaders harassed and bullied them outside public buildings and while returning to their cars. The unions’ response is laughable, but consistent. Union bosses simply cannot allow public employees to learn that they don’t have to pay into the union coffer as a job requirement because when they learn the truth, they opt out in droves. Since June 2018, the Freedom Foundation has helped nearly 65,000 public employees leave their union and stop paying dues. That’s more than $50 million every year staying in the bank accounts of those who earned it, rather than lining the pockets of union bosses and their cronies. ’Tis the season to free workers from government union tyranny.’
VOLUME 31 | ISSUE 1
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 PUBLI CAT I ON OF T HE FREED OM FOU NDATION
CONTENTS PAGE 3
PAGE 4
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
LEADERSHIP MEMO
By LINDSEY QUEEN Reprinted from MYNORTHWEST.COM Public Workers Must Know Their Rights About Union Participation.
By TOM McCABE Our Growth Means More Demand for What We Do and the Means to Do It Even Better.
Reprinted from the SACRAMENTO BEE UC Workers Sue, Argue They Were Freed by Janus.
PAGE 5
What They Said & What They Meant
LITIGATING FREEDOM By MAXFORD NELSEN Caregiver Argues Deceptive Email from SEIU 775 Was an Unfair Labor Practice.
PAGE 7
PAGE 6 By EDITORIAL STAFF Reprinted from the NEWS TRIBUNE The Wait is Over. No More Compulsory Public Union Fees in Tacoma, Beyond.
By KRIS MAHER Reprinted from the WALL STREET JOURNAL Why Some Unions Continue to See Membership Shrink.
By JEFF RHODES Reprinted from the NEWS TRIBUNE Bottom Line: We’re Right and Unions are Wrong
9th Circuit Could Tee Up the Next Landmark Labor Case for SCOTUS.
By JEFF RHODES
PAGE 8
OREGON UPDATE
By JASON DUDASH Four More Teachers Suing Their Union.
“They claim they care about workers. Not true. The Freedom Foundation is funded with dark money from the Koch family and others lurking in the shadows to advance a pro-corporate, antiworker agenda to reduce wages and benefits, eliminate pensions and privatize government jobs.”
By MIKE NEARMAN Portland Still Doesn’t Quite ‘Get’ Document Requests.
PAGE 9
BEST OF THE BLOG By SAMUEL COLEMAN Freedom Foundation in Court to Defend California Teachers.
CHRIS MABE,
Freedom Foundation’s Friends, Foes Weigh in On Our Actions.
President, Ohio Civil Servants Association
Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the election of any elected official or candidate.
By BOB WICKERS Freedom Foundation Uniquely Positioned to be Public-Sector Workers’ Best Friend.
PAGE 11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS
PAGE 10
FREEDOM IN ACTION By Dr. SUSAN BERRY Reprinted from BREITBART NEWS Teachers Unions Report Big Drop in Both Membership, Revenue. By JEFFREY M. SCHLOSSBERG Reprinted from the NATIONAL LAW REVIEW Court Says State Employees’ Dates of Birth are Disclosable.
PAGE 12
ACTION TIMELINE
|
3
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
OUR GROWTH MEANS MORE DEMAND FOR WHAT WE DO, AND THE
MEANS TO DO IT EVEN BETTER
F
rom the time of its founding in 1991 until I arrived in 2013, the Freedom Foundation was focused almost exclusively on the state of Washington but involved in a wide variety of projects to advance its stated goals of “free markets and limited, accountable government.” Today, the formula has been totally reversed. While the objectives we’re fighting for remain the same, the battle has been concentrated a single front — exposing the myriad abuses of government employee unions with an eye toward reducing their influence over the political process at every level. Meanwhile, just a few weeks ago we opened an office in our fourth state — Ohio — and there are plans to cast our net even wider in the coming year. Why the change? To be more effective. The Freedom Foundation made its mark early on as a respected watchdog over Washington state politics, and was widely praised for its work, which included a producing an Emmy-winning video on the failing education system and winning a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court victory in Davenport v. Washington Education Association, a landmark ruling that curbed the power of public-sector unions over their members and is being still cited today in such recent cases as Harris v. Quinn and Janus v. AFSCME. Unfortunately, the tiny Freedom Foundation staff found itself trying to do too much with too little. Consequently, it wound up not moving the needle as far or as fast as it needed to be on what really mattered. Rather than being pretty good at a bunch of things, the solution was to become really great at one thing by focusing all the Freedom Foundation’s talent and resources on a single target. Government unions were the obvious candidate, because as long as they’re allowed to use someone else’s money to pack the Legislature with their leftist cronies, no progress could ever have been made on any of the other areas concern — like land use, education, budget and taxes, etc. — in which the Freedom Foundation was trying to make a difference. And it worked, too. In a very short time, we got really, really good at cutting unions down to size. At first, the Freedom Foundation did as much as any policy organization its size in the country to help pull landmark legal rulings like Harris and Janus — plus a few more of our own — across the finish line. But the real fun started after we had those tools in our hand. Prior to those two rulings, the Freedom Foundation was armed only with the moral high ground. Afterwards, we had the law, too. Since at least 2014, no one has done more than we have to inform government workers about their newly affirmed rights. And when their legitimate efforts to exercise those rights have been suppressed, the Freedom Foundation has been quick to respond with the largest and best-equipped legal team in the nation to resolve member-union disputes. To date, we’ve played a direct role in more than 60,000
public employees leaving their union once and for all — and taking with them millions By TOM McCABE, CEO of dollars in uncollected dues money. Even when we lose we win. Unions forced to spend their dwindling resources fighting us have far less with which to buy elections, and that’s a good thing. But then a funny thing happened: When leaders elsewhere saw what was happening in Washington, they started asking us to bring our successful model to their state. First came Oregon, in 2015, and California followed in 2017. Our Ohio office opened for business this past fall and is already arousing the ire of powerful government union bosses in the Midwest. And others will follow soon. Importantly, all of this happened without diluting the talent or resolve of our base. In fact, replacing our state and regional perspective with a national presence benefits all of our efforts. To cite just one recent example, several years ago Freedom Foundation Labor Policy Analyst Max Nelsen discovered a long-unenforced federal regulation requiring that Medicaid payments to compensated home caregivers be collected only by their intended recipient. In many cases, however, the funds were being diverted instead to the state, which dutifully raked off union dues on behalf of workers who, in many cases, didn’t even know they were union members. After several years and many trips to the other Washington, Max was able to persuade the Trump administration to resume enforcing the law. The unions are fighting it in court, but when they eventually lose and millions of providers around the country learn they no longer owe money to a private organization they didn’t know they belonged to anyway, we believe it will blow a multi-billion-dollar hole in the unions’ war chests. Every state in the nation will reap the rewards when unions no longer have unlimited amounts of other people’s money with which to corrupt the mechanisms of government. But would we have had the wherewithal to find this nugget of information if our focus was still solely Washington? More to the point, would anyone have listened? At the end of the day, our growth is a reflection of the free-market principles on which the Freedom Foundation was founded. We offer a service people consider worth paying for voluntarily — and we do it so well, we’re having to expand to accommodate the increased demand. If only the unions could say as much.
LEADERSHIP
MEMO
LIVING LIBERTY
“
We offer a service people consider worth paying for voluntarily — and we do it so well, we’re having to expand in order to accommodate the increased demand. If only the unions could say as much.
”
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 BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM PUBLIC WORKERS MUST KNOW THEIR RIGHTS ABOUT UNION PARTICIPATION Reprinted from the COLUMBUS DISPATCH DEC. 2, 2019
I
f people don’t know their rights, they can’t exercise them. And that’s exactly what government unions want for publicsector employees in Ohio. On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was a violation of government employees’ First Amendment rights to be forced to pay a union just to keep their job. On that day, government employees across the country were freed from the requirement to line the pockets of union bosses out of their own hard-earned paychecks. But who told them? Certainly not the unions, who stand to lose a lot of money. In fact, labor leaders have been working overtime to keep their members in the dark about their rights to leave and stop having dues taken from their paychecks. Union reps have coerced teachers and other government workers to maintain their membership through subversive tactics, such as: n telling new employees they won’t receive certain benefits if they don’t sign up; n telling existing workers they’re signing a form to confirm their contact infformation; n physical and verbal intimidation, and; n when all else fails, there’s always good, old-fashioned fraud. In more than a few instances, union reps have simply forged signatures of people who declined to join. It’s all in the name of having a signed card that they then use to pilfer
peoples’ paychecks to fill the union coffer And the truth is, unions have to resort to these tactics because many people feel they no longer offer a service that is worth paying for. Think about it: People belong to all manner of organizations or clubs and give money voluntarily to charities they find worthy. Yet public sector unions for decades have been able to force funding from people who would rather not be part of their association. Never mind that an extra $50 to $60 per month could buy a tank or two of gas, put food on the table or make medicine more affordable. Labor leaders need it to fund their fancy junkets, purchase five-star dinners for their friends and buy influence at the Ohio state capital. What unions do not want, what they cannot allow, is for people to find out they can leave the union if they’re dissatisfied with their representation. But as public sector employees do learn they no longer have to support a union in order to keep their jobs, they leave in droves. Since June 2018, more than 60,000 people on the West Coast have resigned their membership and kept more of their money in their own pockets, and that’s because there’s a nonprofit group dedicated to helping them do so. The Freedom Foundation is the only one of its kind that puts
By LINDSEY QUEEN, Ohio Director
boots on the ground to help educate and empower hardworking Americans to know and exercise their First Amendment rights not to associate with or financially support a public sector union. It does this through outreach efforts to personally contact government workers and provide them the information they need to make their own decision. Then, if the union refuses to respect their preference not to participate, the Freedom Foundation steps in on their behalf and provides pro bono legal assistance to hold the unions accountable. Now, the Freedom Foundation is here to bring that same success to the Midwest. As we meet and get to know these employees, we will do everything in our power to elevate their stories and give them a voice. The Freedom Foundation looks forward to using what we learn from our outreach and sharing it with policymakers and members of the administration. For workers happy with their publicsector union, Freedom Foundation’s presence in Ohio changes nothing. While we help people exercise their right to say “no” to unions, we appreciate the fact that some workers will reserve the right to stay. But for those who want out — especially those whose requests have been declined by their union leaders — we’re here to help free you of union bullying. For far too long, big-labor bosses have had a stranglehold on Ohio workers, taxpayers and politicians. Now they have a choice, and the Freedom Foundation will make sure they hear about it.
UC WORKERS SUE UNION, ARGUE THEY WERE FREED BY JANUS Reprinted from the SACRAMENTO BEE Nov. 27, 2019
A
UUC Davis Medical Center worker is suing his union, saying AFSCME 3299 made it difficult for him to leave and is still charging him fees. Terrance Marsh, a brain scan specialist at the Sacramento hospital, left the union in February after four months of trying, according to a legal complaint filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Once he managed to leave, the union informed him he would have to pay a “service” fee equal to his membership dues, according to the complaint. The UC system is still collecting the fee despite his repeated efforts to stop paying it, the complaint says. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its Janus v. AFSCME decision in June 2018 that public employee unions may not charge fees to non-members, determining the involuntary fees violate workers’ First Amendment rights. Previously, public employee unions were allowed to charge so-called fair share fees to nonmembers who benefited from contracts and workplace representation. The Freedom Foundation, a libertarian think tank based in Washington state, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Marsh and six other plaintiffs who work in the UC system. The foundation is supported wealthy conservative donors and has been canvassing job sites to tell workers they can leave their unions.
The group has filed six other lawsuits against unions in California in the last year and a half. AFSCME spokesman Todd Stenhouse didn’t respond to a question about the fees. In a statement, he said the union represents 26,000 of the lowest-paid employees in the UC system. “No serious person believes that these wealthy ideological extremists are actually interested in helping the workers we represent win better pay, benefits or more job security,” Stenhouse said of the Freedom Foundation. “Instead,” he said, “this lawsuit seeks only to expand power for the wealthy and undermine unions at the expense of the most vulnerable workers in our economy.” The legal complaint describes an involved process that Marsh and the other plaintiffs faced when they tried to leave the union. Marsh had difficulty getting union representatives to return his phone calls and email. Finally, someone told him he had to submit his request to leave in writing within 30 days of his union’s contract expiring. After he did that, he learned of a new process he had to go through to stop paying the fees. That process requires workers to submit another written request, this time within a 30-day window that runs from 75 days to 45
days before the anniversary of the day the worker joined the union. “The entire process is just very vague from start to finish,” said Freedom Foundation attorney Mariah Gondeiro. Workers who attempted to leave met with conflicting information from union representatives, Gondeiro said. “The union did not inform them of their rights,” she said. “And when they asked to clarify, they evaded their request or provided information that was not true.” AFSCME was named in a similar lawsuit last year from a UC Irvine worker who wanted to leave her union but couldn’t. Parties to that lawsuit are waiting for a judge’s decision.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
LITIGATING FREEDOM
What They
I’LL HAVE TO CHECK, BUT I THINK FACTS ARE a VIOLATion of OUR CBA.
What They
JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM.
SEIU 775
CAREGIVER ALLEGES DECEPTIVE SEIU 775 EMAIL WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A
s recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have ended mandatory union dues requirements for workers paid by the government, unions have developed new tactics to try and maintain their members. While some have responded by working to improve and better market the value of their services, far too many have resorted to unsavory tactics designed to coerce or deceive employees into authorizing nearly irrevocable union dues deductions from their wages. One of the worst offenders in this regard has been the Seattle-based Service Employees International Union Local 775 (SEIU 775), which represents individual provider home care aides (IPs) serving Medicaid-eligible clients in Washington state. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Harris v. Quinn struck down compelled dues payments for IPs as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, SEIU 775 engineered a flurry of work-arounds, from seizing union dues from IPs’ wages without their consent, to pressuring IPs into signing up for union membership at state-required orientations, to forging IPs’ signatures on membership forms and more. Even simple trickery is not beneath the union. On Sept. 10, 2019, SEIU 775 emailed a group of IPs who had resigned their membership or never signed up in the first place. The subject line of the email read, “Time to update your information.” The body of the email read, “It’s time to update your SEIU 775 member records and contact information. It only takes a few minutes and will ensure you’re getting all the caregiver information you need. Click here to update your membership information.” The email was deceptive for three reasons. First, although it was sent to IPs who were not union members, the email clearly implied the recipient was already a member by asking them to “update your SEIU 775 member records and contact information.” Simply updating your contact information for an organization you’re already a member of requires less consideration than whether to sign up for membership in the first place. Second, SEIU 775 wasn’t actually requesting updated contact information at all, but soliciting membership. Clicking on the link provided in the email
By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director
led to an online form on SEIU 775’s website. While the first page of the form asked the IP to provide his or her contact and personal in formation, the subsequent pages all contained authorizations for the union to collect dues and political contributions from the IPs’ wages and/ or bank account. There was no way for an IP to provide contact information only and complete the form without agreeing to membership. Third, SEIU 775 has set up a series of independent trusts under the banner of the SEIU 775 Benefits Group to administer certain state-funded employment benefits for IPs. These benefits are available to IPs regardless of their membership status with SEIU 775. Although SEIU 775 and the trusts are all legally distinct entities, they deliberately share similar branding and even use the same call center in SEIU 775’s headquarters building in downtown Seattle. As a result, nonmember IPs are often confused about whether a communication is coming from SEIU 775, in which case their guard is up to avoid signing up for membership accidentally, or from the SEIU 775 Benefits Group, which may require legitimate action on the IPs’ part regarding their state-funded benefits. To discourage such deceptive behavior in the future, the Freedom Foundation has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against SEIU 775 with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) on behalf of one of the IPs who received the email. The complaint alleges that, by attempting to mislead IPs into signing up for union membership, SEIU 775 violated IPs’ statutorily protected right to refrain from joining a union or paying union dues. If PERC agrees SEIU 775 committed an unfair labor practice and grants the IPs’ requested remedy, the union will have to send a notice to all IPs in the state informing them that it committed an unfair labor practice by deceptively camouflaging membership agreements as contact information update forms. While doubtful, perhaps this complaint will be the one that convinces SEIU 775 executives to mend their ways. If not, it won’t be the last legal proceeding they have to navigate.
5
&
What she said: “The Freedom Foundation doesn’t speak for the people.” What she meant: “Which ‘people’ would that be? The Freedom Foundation has never claimed DEBRA WINDISHAR Spokane, Wash. to represent Facebook post, the will of the Nov. 30, 2019 majority. But it unquestionably speaks for thousands of individuals who contacted the Freedom Foundation for help because their Constitutional right to opt out of union membership, dues and fees was being thwarted by the unions themselves – with the willing assistance of ‘useful idiots’ like me. ” n n n
She said: “Research the background of the Freedom Foundation and see what they actually stand for.” She meant: “Define ‘research.’ Presumably, it means searching for hard facts, not MARY L. STEWART union propCoupeville, Wash. agnda to Facebook post, buttress Sept. 30, 2019 your own biases. In the Freedom Foundation’s case, you might start by talking firsthand to the more than 60,000 former union members the organization has helped exercise their Constitutional legal rights since Janus.” n n n
He said: “The Freedom Foundation should change its name to the Indentured Servitude Foundation. That’s its true goal.” He meant: “If anyone wants to strip away a worker’s right to choose, it’s the unions. BILL HARDING Yakima, Wash. They’re the ones who force Facebook post Oct. 15, 2019 workers to pay a portion of their salary to support political causes they don’t believe in. When the worker asks for help, the Freedom Foundation defends his or her rights.”
6
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT THE WAIT IS OVER: NO MORE COMPULSORY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION FEES IN TACOMA, BEYOND
BOTTOM LINE: WE’RE RIGHT, UNIONS WRONG
EDITORIAL STAFF
DEC. 4, 2019
Reprinted from THE NEWS TRIBUNE DEC. 4, 2019
F
or government workers in Washington, the freedom to choose not to be a dues-paying member of a public-employee union is finally at hand. Labor unions have been a vital force in society since the Industrial Revolution, and we trust most public-sector workers in our state will see the value of continuing to pay for representation. But those who don’t want to sign the dotted line for political, religious or other personal reasons shouldn’t be coerced into it. Today they have cause to celebrate after a very long wait. First came a blockbuster decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the summer of 2018. Reversing four decades of precedent, the Janus ruling said public-sector workers no longer could be compelled to pay union “fair share” fees. Then Washington lawmakers this year made changes to state law to conform with the new reality. Nobody in Olympia was thrilled about it — neither the labor-backed, Democraticcontrolled Legislature and governor who hated the Janus decision outright, nor the minority Republicans who felt the changes didn’t go far enough to curb union power. Now the last pieces are falling into place, as publicemployee contracts in Tacoma and elsewhere are being written for the post-Janus world. On Tuesday, the Tacoma City Council was set to approve five labor agreements with unions representing hundreds of employees, plus amend the current three-year contract that covers police officers. One provision requires compliance with new terms of the state Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act. In a nutshell, it means local bargaining units must attest that an employee has given informed consent for membership; only then will the city make paycheck deductions to cover union initiation fees, monthly dues and assessments. This seems fairly straightforward, and it’s a defensible way to safeguard the First Amendment rights of public employees. If they decline union membership, it’s not because of a distaste for collective bargaining; they’ll be rejecting their union’s overreach into public policy
issues. No Tacoma cop, utility worker, parking enforcement officer, wastewater plant supervisor — or anyone else on a government payroll — should have to subsidize speech with which they disagree. What’s needed in this postJanus world are opportunities for public employees to get information about union participation, both pro and con, so they can make educated decisions about whether to be full-fledged members. Union representatives should be allowed to bring their best case directly to workers. In Tacoma, for instance, the amended police contract guarantees the union at least 30 minutes of access to new employees before they begin field training. This gives unions a fighting chance to combat the “free rider” problem created by the Janus decision. (“Free riders” are employees who enjoy salary increases and other workplace benefits negotiated by unions without paying for the service.) Union critics, meantime, have spared no effort to erode the influence of organized labor by contacting public employees directly. They got a big lift in October when the Washington Supreme Court ruled that state employee names and birthdates are public records subject to disclosure. Combined with the federal Janus decision, this marked consecutive court victories for the Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank. Call these pressure tactics, if you wish, but we believe workers are capable of sorting through the noise. And while dues-paying membership may slide a bit, unions will remain a viable force as long as they champion the best interests of public employees. The leader of Washington’s largest union that bargains for state employees said as much last year: “We’ve anticipated (the Janus ruling) for a number of years,” Greg Devereux, executive director of the Washington Federation of State Employees, told The News Tribune. “We’ve been really demonstrating I think value and relevance to our members.” If unions keep proving those selling points, publicsector workers will keep signing the dotted line for years to come.
By JEFF RHODES
Reprinted from THE NEWS TRIBUNE
K
udos to The News Tribune for correctly characterizing several recent landmark legal decisions as clear setbacks for public employee unions that feasted for generations on mandatory dues and/or agency fees and metastasized into the dominant force in Washington state politics while growing complacent and disinterested in the legitimate workplace concerns of their conscripted members. And thank you, too, for crediting the Olympia-based Freedom Foundation as the principal agent of these changes — not only in Washington but, increasingly, on the national level. We’re justifiably proud of our legacy. But your Dec. 4 editorial, “The wait is over: No more compulsory public employee union fees...” missed the mark in several other important respects. Most notably, while the author(s) agree public employees should be fully and fairly informed of their newly affirmed rights under Janus v. AFSCME to opt out of union representation, they completely ignore the unions’ manifest hostility to the idea. Labor leaders have tried every trick at their disposal — from ligation, to creating and demanding passage of clearly unconstitutional legislation, to simply pleading ignorance — in order to avoid obeying the law. And don’t expect that to change anytime soon. Meanwhile, the editorial writers seem to believe there is moral equivalency between a requirement that each new city hire attend a 30-minute union arm-twisting session and the “pressure tactics” employed by union critics — presumably a reference to the Freedom Foundation’s extensive (and entirely self-funded) outreach efforts to educate workers about their rights. This is absurd. Unlike the unions, which still maintain a strong — some would say stifling — presence in every government office and have countless not-so-subtle techniques for intimidating and ostracizing dissenters, the Freedom Foundation has neither the authority nor the desire to impose its will on anyone. Our only weapon is the truth about a worker’s rights, and despite the unions’ best efforts to suppress it with the workers’ own dues dollars, we more than hold our own. Notwithstanding the cheery tone of the editorial, however, the fight is far from over. Tacoma should be commended for recognizing several important provisions of the Janus decision in its recently negotiated collective bargaining agreements. But it’s one thing to pass laws or issue Supreme Court rulings. It’s quite another to expect willing compliance from an entity that’s spent literally billions buying the loyalty of union-beholden lawmakers. There have most assuredly been numerous blockbuster legal decisions in recent years with the potential to curb the excesses of public-sector unions and, perhaps, one day even force them to devote more resources to advocating for the wages, benefits and working conditions of their members than they do to advancing a liberal political agenda. Regardless, the takeaway is obvious: All the Freedom Foundation is working for is simple fairness. What the unions want isn’t, and they still haven’t given up hoping they’ll never have to be. Jeff Rhodes is managing editor of the Freedom Foundation.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
WHY SOME UNIONS CONTINUE TO SEE MEMBERSHIP SHRINK By KRIS MAHER Reprinted from the WALL STREET JOURNAL Nov. 21, 2019
S
ome public-workers unions are experiencing steep losses of members and fees, dips largely triggered by a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that gave members an out. The Washington Federation of State Employees lost fees from nearly 7,000 nonmembers after the ruling. Nearly 5,000 workers resigned their membership and stopped paying dues in the year that ended June 30, compared with the prior year, according to filings with the Labor Department. The losses represent a 27.4 percent drop in workers contributing either fees or dues to the union, which took in $3.2 million less than the prior year. The Ohio Association of Public School Employees lost 1,700 fee payers and 448 workers resigned their union membership since the court’s decision. Even after signing up new members, it reported 1,662 fewer dues and fee payers through August of this year, a drop of about 5 percent, compared with two years earlier. The union took in $350,000 less in dues and fees in its most recent fiscal year, a decline of about 2.4 percent. “We’re all adjusting. There’s no question that we are dealing with a smaller revenue base,” said Joe Rugola, executive director of the union. The court, in its Janus decision in June 2018, banned provisions in union contracts requiring government workers in union-represented workplaces to either join the union or pay agency fees. Unions stopped collecting those fees from several hundred thousand public employees. The ruling effectively instituted right-to-work rules for public-sector workers in nearly two dozen states that don’t have such laws, which allow workers to opt out of paying union dues or fees. Some workers have also resigned their union membership, further cutting into union coffers.
The unionization rate among government workers remains high nationally, but has declined slightly in recent years. For instance, the rate for government workers fell from 34.4 percent in 2017 to 33.9 percent in 2018, according to the Labor Department. (The unionization rate of private-sector workers, by contrast, is 6.4 percent.) Renewed organizing efforts and some victories for the teachers unions after strikes in several states has blunted the effect of the Janus ruling for some unions, said Robert Bruno, a professor of labor and employment relations at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Mike Yestramski, president of the Washington Federation of State Employees, said the union anticipated the loss of agency fee payers and hasn’t had to make cuts. Instead, the union has trained more shop stewards to enforce contracts and try to organize more workers. “The overwhelming majority of state employees continue to see the value of the union and want to be involved,” said Mr. Yestramski, who works as a psychiatric social worker at a hospital in Lakewood, Wash. While many public-sector unions are adding new dues-paying members, the pace typically isn’t enough to offset lost revenue from workers who paid agency fees. Fees paid by public employees typically amount to less than full union member dues, but in some cases fees are as much as dues paid by full union members. The American Federation of Teachers recently reported that it added 6,800 new members but lost 83,000 fee payers in the year ended in June, compared with the prior year. The union, which
7
has 1.7 million members, received $18 million less in dues, a 9 percent decline, compared with the prior year. The Oregon School Employees Association reported a loss of fees and dues from 5,523 workers, a drop of 26.6 percent, for the year ended May 31, according to Labor Department filings. The Oregon union, which represents 23,000 bus drivers, cafeteria workers and other support staff, closed three field offices and received a grant of $400,000 from its parent union, the American Federation of Teachers. A union official didn’t respond to requests for comment. Jennifer Corfee said she resigned from her Afscme local union, which represents city workers in Bellingham, Wash., earlier this month, because she doesn’t agree with how the union has spent her dues. An accountant, she calculated that her $50 in monthly dues will net her at least $10,000 over the next 18 years. “Long story short, my reason for pulling out is to take my $50 a month and put it in my retirement,” she said. “It’s pretty significant.” Mr. Bruno, the University of Illinois professor, recently found that in Illinois the unionization rate among public-sector unions fell 4.5 percentage points, or about 35,000 workers, in the six months after the Janus ruling. “It’s not an earth-shattering number,” he said. “On the other hand, organized labor can’t be indifferent to any amount of loss.” Conservative groups have run campaigns aimed at persuading government employees to opt out of paying dues. The conservative Freedom Foundation, based in Olympia, Wash., has focused efforts in Washington, Oregon and California, sending emails, mailings and texts to government workers to let them know that the Janus ruling means they don’t have to pay dues. Billboards the group paid for in Oregon told public employees they could “save thousands by opting out of union dues!” The group, which also provides legal counsel to workers, says it has helped 20,000 public employees resign their union membership in California since the Janus ruling. It opened an office in Ohio earlier this month. “Our experience with public employees shows that a great many are dissatisfied with their union representation, or how unions spend their money,” said Maxford Nelsen, director of labor policy at the Freedom Foundation.
9TH CIRCUIT COULD TEE UP NEXT BIG LABOR CASE FOR SCOTUS
T
he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 10 became the latest battleground in the war between government employee unions and workers eager to exercise their Constitutional rights not to belong to one. But the issues at stake are so consequential, it’s hard to imagine either side declining to appeal an adverse ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has issued at least two landmark rulings in similar cases since 2014. The latest lawsuit, Belgau v. Inslee, et al, was filed in August 2018 on behalf of seven Washington state employees who attempted to resign from the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) shortly after SCOTUS affirmed two months earlier in Janus v. AFSCME that mandatory union membership and dues in the government workplace violate a worker’s First Amendment rights. Rather than simply complying with the ruling, however, unions all around the country responded to Janus by making the optout process as difficult as possible. In the case of the Belgau plaintiffs, they were told by WFSE officials they could only cancel the deduction of union dues from their wages during an arbitrary 10-day escape window occurring during the coming year. Not only do the union’s actions clearly flout the intent of Janus that workers be given every opportunity to decide for themselves questions about workplace representation, but they completely ignore a
By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor
provision in the ruling that would render all government dues deductions unconstitutional unless the employee clearly chooses to waive his or her First Amendment right not to pay dues. Writing for the court majority in Janus, Justice Samuel Alito emphasized: “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.” This means a union cannot simply assume workers want to be union members — and pay dues for the privilege. It must first ask permission. Further, Alito also noted: “By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed.” Thus, before a union can begin deducting dues from a worker’s paycheck, it must not only have the worker’s written consent, but it also must be able to show he or she fully understood that by paying dues they were waiving their right not to. “Agreements to authorize state dues
deductions require informed consent,” explained James Abernathy, senior litigation counsel for the Freedom Foundation, which is representing the Belgau plaintiffs. “But the key is, that standard applies not just to nonmembers, but to all employees, including those who at some point joined a union as members.” The Supreme Court didn’t create a new right, he said. It affirmed a right that has always existed but had been violated for decades. The distinction could have potentially wide-ranging ramifications for government employee unions going forward. “The burden of proof has shifted,” Abernathy, who argued the case, said. “Because the unions have never informed employees of their right not to join or pay dues, virtually every union card authorizing state deductions is null and void under Janus.” “Rather than expecting groups like the Freedom Foundation to give union members a good reason to stop paying dues,” he said, “Janus means that none of these people should be paying dues in the first place, and it’s up to the union to justify why they should.” Judges at the trial court didn’t accept that argument, but the appeal is now in the hands of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Should Belgau reach the U.S. Supreme Court — and regardless of which side prevails at the 9th Circuit, an appeal is all but inevitable — it will be heard by justices who understand Janus completely. And they ought to. They wrote it.
8
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
FOUR MORE TEACHERS SUING THEIR UNION
F
our more Oregon school employees announced on Dec. 5 they were filing a lawsuit against their union for refusing to honor their request to opt out of membership and stop paying dues for services they don’t want. The plaintiffs, from Hillsboro, are represented by the Freedom Foundation, a west coast-based policy organization currently litigating approximately 10 similar lawsuits in Washington, Oregon and California involving public employee unions trying to thwart the will of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Janus v. AFSCME (2018) that government workers have a constitutional right to decline to pay money to a union without fear of reprisal. In response, unions — which stand to lose millions in dues revenue if
By JASON DUDASH, Oregon Assistant Director
workers continue defecting en masse — are doing everything they can to make the opt-out process as complicated as possible. In the Hillsboro case, for example, each of the four plaintiffs, with the help of the Freedom Foundation, decided to opt out of Hillsboro Classified United, AFT Local 4671. They subsequently received a letter from the union, claiming the union membership forms they signed prior to the Janus ruling required them to remain a member of the union — and continue paying dues — for a year from the time they became members.
Oregon Update
Highlighting the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.
The card also asserts they can only opt out during an arbitrary window in June every year. By applying these contrary terms to its own advantage, the union locks its members into dues deductions — for some employees more than a year from the time they opted out of membership. “The issue is the union isn’t even following the terms of their own cards, which are contradictory,” said Rebekah Millard, Freedom Foundation litigation counsel. “Instead of letting members out either a year after they signed a membership card or every June,” she said, “they’re saying both rules apply and keeping people in for the maximum amount of time, which can be months longer than would be the case if they applied just one “window.” Hillsboro Classified United Local 4671 represents non-certified employees of Hillsboro United School District in Hillsboro, Oregon. Local 4671 is an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers and AFT-Oregon. The AFT-Oregon chapter has lost more than a third of its membership since June of last year thanks to the Freedom Foundation’s campaign. The lawsuit is typical of the growing number of cases that challenge unions’ abuse of confusing fine print in their membership cards to force public employees to pay money to the union even after the employees have explicitly resigned membership. “The wording of the Janus ruling was unambiguous, and so was its meaning,” Millard said. “It’s important for workers to have the right to organize, but the First Amendment rights of those who choose not to are no less important. The union can’t run roughshod over someone’s rights just because it wants to keep confiscating their money.”
PORTLAND STILL DOESN’T GET DOCUMENT REQUESTS
P
ortland has shown once again that it doesn’t really regard public records as public. After a bizarre series of events last year that resulted in the city forking over $22,000 in legal fees to the Freedom Foundation, driven more by government union directed hate than any kind of rational policy considerations, the city of Portland has lost another court case dealing with public records. It’s become clear from a Multnomah County Circuit Court ruling, reported in the Portland Mercury, that the city: n creates artificially high, “worstcase” estimates for public records requests, using salaries of very highly paid employees as the basis for the estimate; and, n has no mechanism to refund the requester in cases where the request costs less than the estimate. Oregon law on public records is clear and refreshingly plainspoken: “The public body may establish fees reasonably calculated to reimburse the public body for the public body’s actual cost of making public records available, including costs for summarizing, compiling or tailoring the public records, either in organization or media, to meet the request.” It’s more than disappointing that Portland bureaucrats aren’t just fighting a particular records request; in
By MIKE NEARMAN, Oregon Director
fact, the city has a systemwide policy to slow walk the process for delivering public records. We need to be moving a different direction. We’ve evolved from the days of a clerical bureaucrat leafing through dead-tree file folders to a new era of a technical bureaucrat writing a simple search query — just like you’ve probably done on your own personal email account. It’s simple to do, takes very little time, and the justification for charging the public is less and less defensible. Right now, the procedures for requesting public records resemble nothing so much as a game of “go fish.” Nearly everything is public, but it’s not well indexed or cataloged, so when the taxpayers want information, they must guess. Consequently, public records requests look like, “Any and all documents from X containing the keywords Y or Z.” Imagine a system in which you go to a web page, select a municipality, then select a city employee — like, say, Mayor Ted Wheeler or Historic Landmarks Commission member
Wendy Chung. This essentially redirects you to a read-only version of their email account. Can you imagine the impact this would have on the ability of the media to do their job? We need to be moving in this direction.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
BEST OF THE BLOG FREEDOM FOUNDATION IN COURT TO DEFEND CALIFORNIA TEACHERS NOV. 20, 2019
A
federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 19 heard oral arguments on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by several California teachers against their union, which is desperately hoping it never has to address the core issues in the case. Lead plaintiff Bethany Mendez, a Freemont special education instructor, originally filed suit in March alleging the California Teachers Association refused to honor her request to opt out of union membership and dues in the wake of Janus v. AFSCME, a June 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming that union participation is voluntary for public employees. Six co-plaintiffs later joined the case, which also seeks class action status on behalf of similarly situated teachers. The suit also names the National Education Association, the school districts of each plaintiff and the state of California as defendants. In July, however, attorneys for the union asked for a dismissal, arguing Mendez “voluntarily” signed a “private” — and binding — membership card. The motion, which was originally scheduled for consideration in September but subsequently delayed until this month, also asserts there is no state action in a private transaction. But attorneys for the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit policy organization representing Mendez and the others, argue those interpretations ignore the clear language and intent of Janus. “Janus protects the right of public employees to decline union dues deduction,” said Karin Sweigart, Freedom Foundation litigation counsel. “But it also makes clear that anytime someone signs up for dues deduction, they are
By SAMUEL COLEMAN, California Outreach Director
waiving their First Amendment rights — and Constitutional rights cannot be waived unknowingly.” In order for an employee’s dues deduction to be valid, Sweigart notes, the union must be able to demonstrate “informed consent” by presenting evidence he or she was advised of the full impact of their decision before signing up. None of the teachers involved in the lawsuit were advised they were waiving Constitutional rights. In fact, Mendez and the others allege they were lied to by the union, which pressured them to sign a membership form they believed was still mandatory. Sweigart takes further issue with the unions’ assertion that a membership contract is a private agreement in which the government plays no role. “The government is very much a partner with the union in this enterprise,” she said. “The government employs the teachers and deducts union dues from their paychecks on the unions’ behalf. The government collectively bargained with the union to take the money based solely on what the union says. If the union has no right to the money, the government is wrong to take it.” Sweigart said the motion to dismiss is a familiar union tactic. “The unions have vast resources, while many of their members live paycheck to paycheck,” she continued. “Far too many union members still believe they are required to pay dues. Union members have the right to choose whether they believe membership is valuable to them or not.”
FREEDOM FOUNDATION UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO BE PUBLIC-SECTOR WORKERS’ BEST FRIEND NOV. 21, 2019
T
he Freedom Foundation has now spoken with more than 75,000 public employees across California. With more than two dozen canvassers working across the state, the free-market think tank combines incredible reach with the ability to do what no other organization like it can. With canvassers deployed in Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange County, the Freedom Foundation can speak with one voice to hundreds of public employees daily. While we’ve seen great results from our outreach campaigns, it’s hasn’t been a walk in the park. Our canvassers have dealwith racial slurs, intimidation, harassment, physical threats of violence and a generally hostile atmosphere from union strong-arms. But if unions are universally hostile to our canvasser’s activities, the workers they represent couldn’t be happier to hear from us. The vast majority of conversations we have with public employees end with them taking a flyer informing them of their constitutional rights. According to our latest numbers, we’ve assisted more than 20,000 government workers exercise their right to cease their
By BOB WICKERS, California Director
financial obligation to their union since the U.S Supreme Court issued its ruling 16 months ago Janus v. AFSCME, which affirmed unconstitutionality of mandatory union dues or fees for public employees. There’s no shortage of reasons why a person may want to opt-out either. A few common answers we get are: the union charges too much and doesn’t do anything for workers, like what we’ve heard from more than 100 lifeguards who recently came to us for help opting out; n the union spends money on politics that directly contradict the worker’s personal beliefs; n dislike and/or mistrust of the union’s current leadership or parent union; and, n dues increases or otherwise charging too much money. While these are all good reasons to cease your dues payment to your union, ultimately the reason doesn’t matter. What matters is that public employees have the right to cease paying their union dues, for any reason, at any time, and that the Freedom Foundation will always stand behind their right to exercise that right.
FAN MAIL “Just wanted to let you know
that my Local 1 affiliate of AFSCME has honored my requested for my membership termination. I sent the letter you helped with to the Local 1 office and my county HR director. My next paycheck showed no dues and fees being deducted. I will let you know if they go back on this. Thanks for the help and keep up the good work.”
- DENNIS “Thank you for your assistance throughout this matter. Keep up the great work and continuing to spread the word about the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case.” – MIGUEL “Thank you for following up regarding my election to opt out of union dues. The Freedom Foundation website did assist me in generating a letter to opt out and it was so easy to access and resulted in success.” – RICHARD “This is awesome!!!!! I truly appreciate all the help from you and everyone in your organization. I will definitely relay your info to anyone else that is looking to get out of these bully unions. Thank You again.” – LUIS “I received a direct deposit from [my union] for 2 months of union dues, and on my [recent] check they did not take out the union dues…thank you so much for your help in this matter. I really appreciate you!!” – JANET “Thank you for all your help. I appreciate your time, effort and understanding through the process of opting out of my union. Freedom Foundation equals hope and I’m grateful you are here for us who want to fight for justice…” -BETH
9
10
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
FREEDOM IN ACTION TEACHERS UNIONS REPORT BIG DROP IN BOTH MEMBERSHIP AND REVENUE By Dr. SUSAN BERRY Reprinted from BREITBART NEWS NOV. 13, 2019 A recent report at the Washington Free Beacon demonstrated that, despite the media spectacles of red-shirted striking teachers in large cities, teachers’ unions are shedding numbers and revenue, even in states in which they have encountered strong support in the past. The Free Beacon reported: Two Oregon teachers’ unions—the state’s American Federation of Teachers (AFT) chapter and the Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA)—reported drops in paying members of 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Both unions lost nearly $1 million in revenue as a result, with the OSEA closing three field offices and accepting a $400,000 bailout from its parent organization to help make ends meet. In Washington, the Federation of State Employees disclosed a 27 percent decline in financial supporters since June 2018. According to the report, only 10.5 percent of American workers were union members in 2018, “the lowest percentage in the past century.” Nevertheless, a poll released in June – one year after the Janus ruling – revealed 52 percent of teachers still were unaware it is their right to leave their unions without paying a fee.
The survey, sponsored by the Teacher Freedom Project and conducted by YouGov, found over three in four teachers (77 percent) had not even heard of the Janus case. Despite that outcome, 74 percent said union membership should be voluntary, and 84 percent agreed teachers should be able to join or quit a union at any time. The poll found significant misconceptions among teachers about which aspects of their employment have nothing to do with union membership and what the Janus case means in terms of membership in unions. As the Free Beacon reported, the National Right to Work Foundation, which argued and won the Janus case before the Supreme Court, is working now “to close loopholes that labor unions use to prevent workers from ending their payments,” including enacting “withdrawal windows,” in which they set very short time periods with rigid deadlines in which to officially withdraw from the union. “Already hundreds of thousands of teachers and other public workers have been freed from mandatory union payments as a result of Janus,” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens in a statement to Breitbart News. He continued: Though even that impact may only be the tip of the iceberg considering that countless
more government employees are still being coerced into funding unions as a result of union boss-invented schemes meant to circumvent Janus, such as ‘escape periods’ which block workers from exercising their First Amendment Janus rights except for a few days every year or few years. Currently those restrictions are being challenged in numerous lawsuits nationwide brought by workers who want to stop funding union activities but have been illegally told they cannot. Semmens also told the Free Beacon the decline in teacher union membership and revenues in states such as Oregon and Washington suggests the union bosses likely depended on “coercion to corral workers into their ranks.” “Hundreds of thousands of teachers and other public employees across the country remain trapped in dues payments because of union policies that block workers from exercising their First Amendment rights,” he said. The Freedom Foundation has been working to educate teachers in Oregon and Washington about the effect of the Janus ruling and the fact they can no longer be compelled to pay union dues and agency fees as a requirement of their employment. Aaron Withe, the group’s national director, told the Free Beacon he believes the Freedom Foundation’s extensive outreach efforts have brought about the fallout in both western states. “We’ve spoken to tens of thousands of public employees at their homes and offices, and what we’ve found is that when they learn their rights under Janus, they opt out in droves,” he said, adding his foundation’s education efforts will soon be expanded in other states as well. “We expect to see these results continue in the larger states that we operate in as we continue and expand this campaign,” Withe said.
COURT SAYS STATE EMPLOYEES’ DATES OF BIRTH DISCLOSABLE By JEFFREY M. SCHLOSSBERG Reprinted from the NATIONAL LAW REVIEW FOR THE LAST TIME, COUNSELOR...
NOV. 13, 2019
H
ow private should your date of birth be? The Washington State Supreme Court ruled recently that state employees’ birthdates associated with their names are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to a freedom of information records request. In so holding, the court strictly construed the applicable statute that did not expressly exempt birthdates from disclosure. Washington Public Employees Association v. State Center for Childhood Deafness & Hearing Loss. Private and public entities across the country that respond to countless requests for information may want to rethink their approach. In 2016, the Freedom Foundation sent public records access requests to several state agencies seeking disclosure of records for union-represented employees, including their full names, associated birth dates, and agency work e-mail addresses. Upon reviewing the Foundation’s requests, the agencies determined that all of the requested records were disclosable and indicated that, absent a court order, they intended to release the requested records. Several unions filed motions for preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent disclosure of the requested records based (among other things) on privacy concerns. In its decision, the court ruling stated, “We appreciate the unions’ concern that disclosing birth dates with corresponding employee names may allow ... requesters or others to obtain residential addresses and to potentially access financial information,
retirement accounts, health care records or other employee records. Yet, we cannot judicially expand the (law’s) narrow exemptions beyond the boundaries set by the legislature, lest we step beyond our interpretive role and risk disrupting the balance of public policies the (law) reflects.” Significantly, the Court noted that it had long ago defined the “right to privacy” by referring to the common law tort of invasion of privacy through public disclosure of private facts citing, Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe (1978). The State legislature subsequently codified a “right to privacy” as being invaded or violated “only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and, (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.” The court did go on to acknowledge legitimate concerns about the misappropriation of birth dates that echo the concerns related to Social Security numbers. However, the court ruled that this does not mean that names and associated birth dates have become private — only that this information is personally identifying. The fact that information is personally identifying, alone, is insufficient to warrant its exemption from disclosure. Ultimately, the court noted that the union’s argument was a policy-based one concerned with the wide abuse of personal
...YOUR CLIENT CAN’T RESPOND to a public information request that includes a birthdate by asking “HOW OLD DO I LOOK?”
identifiers for criminal purposes which was not its to make. While the Court was constrained by the statute at issue that specifically exists for the purpose of allowing the public to obtain information about government, the court did acknowledge concern generally for the misappropriation of personally identifying information. This concern should be instructive for public and private sector entities alike. Notably, there has been an increase across the country in state laws that have created or expanded on privacy rights (despite Washington’s failed effort earlier this year to pass the Washington Privacy Act, a European-style data protection law). These laws are expanding the categories of personal information that warrant protection — it is no longer just the Social Security number. When not compelled by law, such as a freedom of information law, public and private entities should consider disclosing only what is minimally necessary to respond to a request with particular attention to data elements that facilitate identify theft.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS IN PRINT
Nov. 24, 2019
IN PRINT
Dec. 10, 2019
OHIO RETURNS IMPROPERLY SEIZED UNION DUES TO BUS DRIVER “Union shortcomings in Oregon and Washington have come amidst an outreach campaign from the Freedom Foundation, a pro-free market group working to educate union members on their postJanus rights. The group recently expanded its operations into Ohio. Fizer’s willingness to stand up to politically powerful labor groups could embolden other union members to follow suit, according to Lindsey Queen, the foundation’s state director in Ohio.” ONLINE
Dec. 9, 2019
OREGON SCHOOL EMLPOYEES SUE TO LEAVE UNION ON THEIR TERMS “The Freedom Foundation argues that the unions are violating the employees’ rights under the First Amendment by enforcing the “restrictive language” in the cards union members sign when they sign up for the union, limiting the plaintiffs’ freedoms of speech and association. Plaintiffs claim the process is burdensome and confusing, and can keep workers on the union’s membership rolls much longer than they want to be.
UNIONS MUST FOLLOW COURT’S RULING “(S)tates should follow Alaska’s post-Janus model and replace a union-controlled opt-out system with an employee-controlled optin process. In the meantime, various organizations (including the Freedom Foundation and the California Policy Center) are helping union employees exert their rights.” IN PRINT
Dec. 9, 2019
LETTER: FREEDOM FOUNDATION EXISTS TO TEAR DOWN LABOR UNIONS “Presently, the Freedom Foundation is data-mining the personal information of thousands of public employees from their work, pension and Bureau of Workers Compensation records. The Freedom Foundation is asking for the home address, email, date of birth, salary and other information of public employees. Why? So they can target these hardworking people with misinformation and lies.
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
Nov. 21 The Wall Street Journal publishes an article chronicling the loss of government employee union membership during the first year and a half after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. The article, headlined “Why Some Unions Continue to Lose Members,” makes clear the phenomenon is more pronounced in states where there is an active outreach effort to inform public employees of their rights and makes special mention of the Freedom Foundation’s success in this area.
Membership.” The piece, heralding the organization’s arrival in the Buckeye State and explaining its mission, is subjected to an orchestrated attack by labor leaders, who submit three letters to the editor in three days critical of it.
Dec. 6
The Freedom Foundation files suit on behalf of seven University of California employees whose attempts to opt out of AFSCME 3299 were rebuffed by the union. The case is one of several in which the Freedom Foundation is arguing the union’s actions are unconstitutional because the members were never advised that by paying dues they were waiving their rights not to.
The News Tribune, on Dec. 4, publishes an editorial headlined, “The wait is over. No more compulsory public-employee union fees in Tacoma and beyond,” noting that Tacoma’s new collective bargaining agreement with the unions represen ing city employees includes several provisions included in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus ruling and championed by the Freedom Foundation. Two days later, the paper publishes an op-ed written by Freedom Foundation managing editor Jeff Rhodes headlined, “Until Unions Fully Comply with Janus the Fight Will Go On,” noting that the earlier piece essentially concedes the Freedom Foundation’s actions all along have amounted to simple fairness — which the unions are still fighting tooth and nail.
Dec. 3
Dec. 9
The Columbus Dispatch, publishes an op-ed authored by Freedom Foundation Ohio Director Lindsey Queen headlined, “Public Worker Need to Understand Their Rights About Union
The Freedom Foundation launches its annual holiday outreach campaign in which paid canvassers make uninvited visits to state office buildings dressed as Santa Claus bearing infor-
Nov. 26
BY THE NUMBERS The Freedom Foundation started the current school year off by reaching out to public school employees across Washington. We wanted to let them know how much money they could keep in their own pockets every year by opting out of union dues. PSE/SEIU 1948 is the largest union in the state representing bus drivers, paraeducators, cafeteria workers, maintenance, office staff, and other non-teaching classified public school personnel. The result: More than 500 members have already opted out through our website and office alone. mation about how workers can give themselves a hefty Christmas present by opting out of union dues in the coming year. Dec. 10 The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments in the case of Belgau v. Inslee, et al. Represented by the Freedom Foundation, the seven plaintiffs — all Washington state employees — attempted to opt out of their union shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME made doing so possible, but their union declined their request. Freedom Foundation attorneys argue Janus requires the union to not only obtain a worker’s permission before deducting dues but also inform him or her their decision to pay union dues means they are waiving their right not to. Because the union neglected to, none of its membership agreements are valid.
“The Secret to Happiness is
Freedom
and the Secret to Freedom is
Courage”
-THUCYDIDES
Greek Historian, 460 BCE-404 BCE