JUD GE T O S S E S S E IU 7 7 5 MO T ION [5] T E A C HE R WA L K OU T E X P O S E S OE A’S ULT E RIOR MO T I V E S [8] UNION S DE DUC T DUE S W I T HOU T C ON S E N T [1 0 ]
LIVINGLIBERTY A PUBLICATION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION | JUNE 2019
with a little
HELP from our
FRIENDS
NATION’S LEADING LEGAL ADVOCATES URGE SCOTUS TO HEAR FREEDOM FOUNDATION CASE
Electronic Service Requested
Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507
T
he Freedom Foundation makes more than powerful arguments. It makes powerful friends, too, and the latter may just be enough to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the former. During May, the Freedom Foundation received word a collection of national legal heavyweights had submitted amicus briefs in support of its recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of a politically motivated 5-4 ruling issued in January by the left-leaning Washington State Supreme Court. The case in question dates back to 2014, when citizen activists in Sequim, Shelton and Chelan attempted to place labor reform measures on their municipal election ballots only to be thwarted when the city council in each community bowed to union pressure and denied voters a chance to decide for themselves. The initiative sponsors subsequently challenged their cities in court, and the Freedom Foundation provided all three with pro bono representation. The lawsuits proved unsuccessful, but in the meantime, a union front group filed a campaign finance complaint against the Freedom Foundation, alleging it was required to report the value of its legal costs as an in-kind political contribution to the pro-initiative forces. The charge was laughable on its face, given that it’s impossible to commit a cam-
By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor
paign finance violation without a campaign. And the trial court judge agreed, but when the unions prevailed on appeal, the case found its way to the unanimously liberal Washington State Supreme Court, which issued its narrow ruling against the Freedom Foundation. With important Constitutional principles at stake, Freedom Foundation attorneys quickly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to decide by the end of June which cases to hear when the fall term starts in October. To help the justices make up their minds, the Freedom Foundation’s case was bolstered by a brief submitted by the Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation; another filed jointly by the Institute for Free Speech and the Cato Institute; and a third filed by a coalition including: n the Liberty Justice Center; n the 60-Plus Association; n the Alliance Defending Freedom; n Americans for Tax Reform; n the Beacon Center; n the Center for Worker Freedom; n the Center for the American Experiment; and, n the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. “The problem with labeling non-campaign legal work as a campaign expenditure is fairly clear — there can be no campaign-finance violation if there’s no campaign,” Cato Institute attorneys wrote in a blog post about their brief. “Citizens were never asked to vote on anything, nor did anyone try to influence their votes. “But the issue goes even deeper,” they continued. “When a law tries to make See SCOTUS Page 5
VOLUME 30 | ISSUE 6
[2]
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CAT I ON OF T HE FREED OM FOU NDATION
CONTENTS
Our mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.
PAGE 3 LEADERSHIP MEMO
Publisher: Tom McCabe Editor: Jeff Rhodes
CONTACT Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482 FreedomFoundation.com
“Quote” ~ of the month ~
By TOM McCABE What a Great Past Couple of Weeks It’s Been, and We’re Just Getting Started.
PAGE 4
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM By ILYA SHAPIRO, TREVOR BURRUS & PATRICK MORAN
By VICTOR JOECKS
Reprinted from the CATO INSTITUTE
SEIU More Concerned About Collecting Its Members’ Dues Than It is About Their Well-Being.
Ballot Initiatives Won’t Love You Back.
PAGE 5
Reprinted from the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
What They Said & What They Meant
LITIGATING FREEDOM By JEFF RHODES Judge Tossses SEIU 775 Motion in Campaign Finance Lawsuit. By HANNAH COOKSEY AFSCME Finally Ends Worker’s Dues After Months of Passing the Buck.
PAGES 6-7
AFTER SHOCKS With Democrats Firmly in Charge in Olympia, Spending and Union Payoffs Were the Theme of the Just-Concluded 2019 Legislative Session.
PAGE 8
OREGON UPDATE
By REBEKAH MILLARD Five Years Later, SEIU 503 Finally Hands Over Worker’s Illegally Seized Dues.
“The American system of democracy is under threat. It’s under threat from an Obama campaign that seeks to polarize Americans along race and class lines. It’s under threat from a Democratic Party that seeks to pit those who pay taxes against those who don’t. But most of all, it’s under attack from America’s public-sector unions.”
By BOAZ DILLON Teacher Walkout Exposes OEA’s Ulterior Motives.
PAGE 9
BEST OF THE BLOG
PAGE 10 FREEDOM IN ACTION
By MAXFORD NELSEN Unions Fighting Workers’ Rights at Their Own Peril.
By KEVIN MOONEY
For the DAILY SIGNAL
BEN SHAPIRO
Syndicated Columnist Aug. 22, 2012
Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the election of any elected official or candidate.
Unions Keep Deducting Workers Dues Without Their Consent.
Freedom Foundation’s Friends, Foes Weigh in On Our Actions.
PAGE 11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS
PAGE 12
ACTION TIMELINE
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
3
WHAT A GREAT PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IT’S BEEN, AND
WE’RE JUST GETTING STARTED
I
t’s possible the Freedom Foundation has enjoyed a more productive couple of weeks than we’ve witnessed in the first half of May, but I’d be hard-pressed to say when that might have been. Conversely, these are precisely the kinds of setbacks longtime SEIU 775 president David Rolf no doubt saw on the horizon last year when he slinked into an early and unceremonious retirement. By now, for example, you’ve hopefully heard about the Trump Administration’s decision earlier this month to more aggressively enforce a rule preventing states from siphoning dues money from the paychecks of home-based caregivers being compensated by Medicaid. Note how that was phrased. This isn’t some new regulation being imposed by executive order or judicial fiat. The federal Center for Medicaid Services (CMS) has had a rule on the books for decades requiring that Medicaid payments be received by the client him- or herself. But the unions and their henchmen in state legislatures like Washington, Oregon and California simply decided to cut the caregivers out of the decision-making process and start deducting dues before the ink on their paychecks was even dry. Think for just a minute about how despicable a practice this actually is. We’re talking about money earmarked by Congress to help Americans care for their low-income loved ones. These are truly some of the finest, most unselfish individuals you’ll find anywhere. But while you and I would never begrudge these angels of mercy a penny of the modest stipend they receive for their services, the unions see only a pile of money. And like the Mafia dons they emulate with cold calculation, union leaders — and the lawmakers they corrupt with confiscated dues money to keep the whole enterprise legal — are determined to wet their beaks. Keeping as much distance as possible between workers and their money always made a sort of ruthless sense for the unions, but the stakes were raised exponentially in 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that home healthcare and childcare providers are not full-fledged public employees and, thus, cannot be forced to pay union dues or agency fees as a condition of employment. Faced with the prospect of millions of members bolting overnight, unions doubled down on their efforts to keep workers in the dark about their newly recognized rights. Within months, however, Freedom Foundation Labor Policy Director Maxford Nelsen had uncovered the
scheme and began working to unravel it. Make no mistake, this was Max’s baby By TOM McCABE, CEO from start to finish. He was aided by the Freedom Foundation’s attorneys and support staff, and other national policy organizations subsequently jumped on board and helped make the case, but this literally never would have happened had Max not made more than a dozen trips to Washington to inform, coax and, when necessary, nag anyone who would listen into taking action. We fully expect the unions will wage yet another court battle over this. But they’ll ultimately lose, and when the new rule takes effect it will mean an estimated $150 million or more in lost revenue — potentially a kill shot for some of our most reprehensible foes. But even as we were digesting that good news, the Freedom Foundation was informed on May 13 that 11 of the most prominent legal and policy organizations in the country had signed on to amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a monstrously unconstitutional ruling issued against us by the Washington State Supreme Court in January. The case at issue (described in detail on page 1 of this issue of Living Liberty) involves a frivolous campaign finance complaint filed against the Freedom Foundation in an attempt to stifle our free speech by circumscribing arbitrary limits around our ability to provide pro bono legal services when needed. It won’t work, and we’re confident the same justices who delivered a body blow to the unions last summer in Janus v. AFSCME will inflict further damage this time around. No doubt the unions — and their hired accomplice, Attorney General Bob Ferguson — expected us to give up far short of a date with SCOTUS, but that’s not how we roll. With you behind us, we’ll never fold with a winning hand. And if the last two weeks are any indication, the chips are about to start to accumulating in nice, tall piles at our end of the table.
LEADERSHIP
MEMO
LIVING LIBERTY
“
We’ll never fold with a winning hand ... and if the last two weeks are any indication, the chips are about to start accumulating in nice, tall piles at our end of the table.
”
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) 856-3482, OR VISIT WWW.FREEDOM FOUNDATION.COM
4
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM BALLOT INITIATIVES WON’T LOVE YOU BACK By ILYA SHAPIRO, TREVOR BURRUS and PATRICK MORAN Reprinted from the CATO INSTITUTE May 13, 2019
W
hen voters want to change how they’re being governed, the existing legal framework should make it easy for them to do so — or at least not get in their way. That’s what a group of concerned citizens from three cities in Washington state believed when they set out to reform unions. They tried to place their proposal on three municipal ballots, which involved collecting signatures from the relevant communities and filing them alongside the initiative. State law seemed to require the cities to place these measures on the ballot or adopt them outright. None of the city councils did either of those things, so the citizens sued, arguing that the cities’ actions were illegal. The nonprofit Freedom Foundation represented them pro bono (free of charge), but they were unsuccessful — there were ultimately no campaigns for the ballot initiatives. Despite that legal failure and no election, unions filed a complaint against the Freedom Foundation for failing to disclose its pro bono legal work as a “campaign expenditure.”
The problem with labeling non-campaign legal work as a campaign expenditure is fairly clear: there can be no campaign-finance violation if there’s no campaign. Citizens were never asked to vote on anything, nor did anyone try to influence their votes. But the issue goes even deeper: When a law tries to make lawyers disclose work undertaken free of charge, it opens them up to harassment and political attack, and makes it more difficult for citizens to find legal representation, discouraging political speech for both. The First Amendment broadly protects such speech, regardless of whether the speaker is a lawyer or concerned citizen. The Framers understood that robust political speech serves as one of the most important checks on government. A politically engaged citizenry acts as the immune system of a representative democracy, combating abuses of power and even preventing tyranny. That’s why the Supreme Court looks with a jaundiced eye on laws that “chill” political speech. By placing arbitrary restrictions on polit-
ical speech through overreaching disclosure requirements, Washington’s campaign-finance law fits that description. Perhaps most concerning, it dissuades lawyers from taking on pro bono work, an overwhelmingly popular practice in the legal profession that many state bar associations strongly encourage, including Washington’s own. And one more thing that moves this whole thing from the ridiculous to the absurd: Campaign-finance laws exist to combat corruption, but a ballot initiative can’t be corrupted. It can’t offer a political favor in exchange for money or support. No matter what you do for it, it won’t love you back. Washington’s attempt to redefine what a campaign is, and to broaden the idea of corruption to the point of incomprehensibility, all to justify punishing political activism should not go unchecked. Cato has partnered with the Institute for Free Speech in filing an amicus brief supporting the Freedom Foundation’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. We ask the court to take the case and clarify that a vague notion of “transparency” for its own sake can’t be used to stifle free expression. The Supreme Court will likely decide before it breaks for the summer at the end of June whether to take up the case of Evergreen Freedom Foundation v. Washington.
SEIU MORE CONCERNED ABOUT MEMBERS’ DUES THAN THEIR WELL-BEING By VICTOR JOECKS Reprinted from the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL APRIL 26, 2019
E
very public-sector union member in the country now has the freedom not to join a union, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. Predictably, some unions have resorted to dirty tricks to keep membership dues flowing.Consider the SEIU 775 in Washington state. Cindy Ochoa is a home-care provider in Spokane. Homecare providers aren’t employees in the traditional sense. They usually provide home care for a disabled loved one. This arrangement allows individuals with special medical needs to stay in their homes, which is better for them and saves the government money. But several years ago, Democrat governors started deeming these folks employees for the sole purpose of allowing unions such as the SEIU to collect dues from them. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that home-care providers have the right to opt out of union membership. Last year, the Supreme Court, in the Janus decision, expanded that right to all public employees. Back to Ms. Ochoa. She left
SEIU 775 shortly after the Harris decision. In 2017, however, she noticed the union had resumed collecting dues out of her paycheck. Turns out a union organizer forged her signature after Ms. Ochoa had declined his overtures to sign up. Ms. Ochoa called and emailed union officials in a attempt to get them to stop illegally stealing her money. It didn’t work. So she eventually turned to the Freedom Foundation, a think tank that specializes in helping workers exercise their opt-out rights. In 2018, The foundation demanded the SEIU stop the dues deduction. The SEIU agreed after acknowledging that the signature on her membership card didn’t match her signature. Just a few weeks later, however, the union was at it again. It started taking money out of her paycheck for a membership she didn’t want and hadn’t agreed to. This time, the Freedom Foundation took the SEIU to federal court. Five months later, the labor group agreed to settle. Ms. Ochoa was awarded $15,000, and the foundation recovered $13,000 in legal fees. The leaders of SEIU 775 even
promised to send a written apology. The SEIU’s behavior in the Ochoa case is no doubt an extreme example of unions ignoring established law in order to keep the money flowing to fund the union’s progressive political activism. But less obvious tactics are common. For instance, teachers in Nevada can leave their union by submitting written notice
only between July 1 and 15. To leave the union in one California school district, teachers have to submit written notice between 30 and 60 days of the anniversary of their initial signup. Unions aren’t entitled to dues from employees who don’t want their representation. That unions resort to tactics such as these speaks volumes about their actual allure for many government workers.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
LITIGATING FREEDOM JUDGE TOSSES SEIU 775 MOTION IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWSUIT May 9, 2019
W
hen union leaders are caught red-handed trying to conceal the extent of their political activity from the public, campaign finance officials and their own dues-paying members, their response typically depends on the size of their liability. When there’s relatively little involved — and by union standards, that could mean anything up to a few hundred thousand dollars — the preferred strategy is to throw money at the problem. After all, it isn’t coming out of their pockets. It comes out of the members’ dues, and there’s a nearly inexhaustible supply of that. Even better, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is a reliably compliant stooge who can always be counted on to approve settlement agreements in which the unions get away with paying pennies on the dollar. But when the stakes are
By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor
bigger, they resort to a different tactic — stonewalling. And based on the number of frivolous motions filed by the union’s team of pettifogging attorneys in an ongoing campaign finance lawsuit originally filed in January 2018 by the Freedom Foundation against SEIU 775, they must be hiding plenty. On May 2, the Washington State Court of Appeals denied the union’s motion to dismiss, meaning the case — which involves SEIU 775’s laughable claim that it isn’t a political action committee and therefore not subject to the financial reporting standards of a PAC — can proceed. The excruciating details of its motion and the underlying case are fairly standard stuff; the Freedom Foundation has filed dozens of such complaints
against a variety of labor organizations in recent years, prevailing more often than not. The real takeaway is the message sent to the union that the Freedom Foundation won’t be deterred in its mission to ensure it plays by the rules. Again, when there are too many dollars at stake to settle, a union’s slippery scheme of choice is to play footsie with its adversaries knowing few private citizens can match the financial resources available to a group like SEIU 775. Until last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling banning mandatory dues and fees in the public workplace, unions essentially had carte blanche to pick the pockets of hundreds of thousands of government employees. Much of the confiscated dues money was used to line the pockets of duplicitous politicians like Bob Ferguson, but there’s still enough left to pay attorneys millions of dollars to delay — and, all too often, deny — justice.
AFSCME FINALLY ENDS WORKER’S DUES AFTER MONTHS OF PASSING THE BUCK May 11, 2019
O
n the day last June the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed compulsory union dues and fees, Patrick Freeman printed a letter from the Freedom Foundation’s OptOutToday. com website and mailed it to Oregon AFSCME 75, requesting that his dues payments cease immediately. On July 10, Sam Austin, AFSCME 75’s former administrative services manager, informed Freeman he could be a non-member, but that AFSCME 75 would continue taking his money until Feb. 15 because of a five-day opt-out window written into the union’s collective bargaining agreement. Approximately two weeks later, Freeman received another letter from AFSCME 75, this time from Stephanie Swan. She contradicted the previous letter, stating that his dues would be deducted until Jan. 24, 2019 — the anniversary of when he became a union member. To complicate matters even further, on Oct. 25, Freeman received another letter from Swan letting him know that AFSCME 75 would notify his employer to stop all dues deductions. Not that it mattered.
By HANNAH COOKSEY, Paralegal
All three dates passed and the union continued skimming money from his paycheck. That’s when Freeman contacted the Freedom Foundation, whose attorneys promptly fired off a letter demanding clarification of the confusing trail of conflicting letters and opt-out dates. AFSCME 75 passed the buck to the county, maintaining that it had already been notified to stop the dues payments. That excuse, however, left out a few pertinent details, such as the fact that the union had willingly accepted the dues the county deducted in the meantime. AFSCME 75’s policy is to keep the dues authorizations and simply hand the employer a list of employees from whom to deduct dues. And under the current CBA, AFSCME 75 holds the employer harmless for any liability regarding dues deductions. Although AFSCME 75 did not admit its wrongdoing, it grudgingly issued Freeman a refund for months’ worth of wrongfully deducted dues.
SCOTUS: LEGAL POWERHOUSES WEIGH IN Continued from page 1 lawyers disclose work undertaken free of charge, it opens them up to harassment and political attack, and makes it more difficult for citizens to find legal representation, discouraging political speech for both.” Placing arbitrary restric-
tions on political speech, their argument states, dissuades lawyers from taking on pro bono work, an overwhelmingly popular practice in the legal profession that many state bar associations strongly encourage, including Washington’s own. “And one more thing that
moves this whole thing from the ridiculous to the absurd,” the Cato article notes. “Campaign-finance laws exist to combat corruption, but a ballot initiative can’t be corrupted. It can’t offer a political favor in exchange for money or support. No matter what you do for it, it won’t love you back.”
5
What They
&
What They What she said: “The Freedom Foundation is an extreme conservative group actively trying to flip liberal states to conservative states.” What she meant: “I prefer extreme liberal organiza- MARILYN SAXON tions, like my Detroit, Mich. union, which Facebook post, April 20, 2019. have a long, proud history of mandatory membership and suppression of rights. Like its leaders, I know the best way to keep fiscally responsible, freedom-enhancing ideas from taking root is to keep anyone from ever hearing about them in the first place, let alone exercising them. That’s what makes the Freedom Foundation so dangerous. They actually think people should be free to make their own choices rather than letting us do it for them. n n n
He said: “Just by their name I knew this was one of those conservative groups that covers itself with the flag but doesn’t care about actual people in need.” DOUG JANZEN Portland, Ore. Facebook post, March, 28, 2019
He meant: “The only thing I hate more than sincere expressions of patriotism are people who believe those in need should be allowed to decide for themselves how to solve their problems rather than being forced to accept the solutions I choose for them.” n n n
He said: “The name ‘Freedom Foundation’ fills me with deep suspicion.” He meant: “I guess that’s because my union fears them so much and told me CURT ERICKSON they do bad Portland, Ore. things. If I Facebook post did a little April 19, 2019 reasearch, I’d find out the truth, but that would mean thinking for myself and the union discourages that.”
6
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
WITH DEMS FIRMLY IN CHARGE, SPENDING AND UNION PAYOFFS THE THEME DURING 2019 WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE SESSION By JAMI LUND, Senior Policy Analyst
he 2019 Washington state legislative session ended this week, and it was the first time Democrats controlled the entire budget-writing process since 2011. How did that work out? Despite having revenue increases of nearly 10 percent, the legislature increased spending by roughly 20 percent. Tax increases were primarily targeted at undesirable entities or actions in the eyes of legislative leaders. In addition, lawmakers created some new specific revenue schemes for specific government activities outside of the usual budget process. Finally, favors were provided for select entities like union operators, the hockey arena, and sellers of green transportation products and services. Takeaway points from the budget include: Revenue is up within existing taxes. 2017-19 biennium: $46.1 billion 2019-21 biennium: $50.5 billion — 9.6 percent higher than expected 2017-19 revenue Source: WA State Revenue Forecast, March 20, 2019 Spending is up even more. 2017-19 biennium $43.2 billion (boosted to $44.8 in supplemental budgets). 2019-21 biennium $52.0 billion, 18 percent higher than the budget which finishes in June 2019. Source: WA State Fiscal Information, April 30, 2019 New tax increases permit state-budgeted spending to increase nearly 20 percent. E2SHB 2158 imposes a business tax on targeted firms like Microsoft and Amazon: $380 million ESSB 5998 imposes a higher real estate excise tax on high-dollar real estate sales: $244 million SHB 2167 imposes a higher business-and-occupation tax on targeted financial firms: $133 million
SSB 5581 imposes sales tax on more online sellers out-of-state: $115 million ESB 6016 imposes higher business-and-occupation taxes on targeted International Investment Management Services businesses: $59 million ESSB 5997 ends the automatic sales tax exemption for nonresidents: $54 million ESSB 6004 imposes a higher business-and-occupation tax on targeted tourism firms: $5 million Tax breaks for targeted firms or activities. 2SHB 2042 gives targeted tax breaks to green transportation enterprises: -$28.7 million. ESHB 1839 gives a deferral and payment plan for sales taxes for the ice hockey arena: -$40.7 million. SHB 1406 allows counties and cities to levy sales taxes which will be credited against state sales tax for affordable housing activities or rent assistance: -$17 million maximum.
Taxes passed to fund other spending increase
Legislative leadership seems t side of the normal budgeting proc nue schemes to fund specific gov This practice fractures the natu be happening in the budgeting pr transparency of government spen As a result, important prioritie starved of resources while design flush with cash and spending was
ESSB 5312 invites school tracts by increasing property taxes dollars of assessed property value million. ESSB 5993 increases tax
es
to favor keeping money outcess by levying specific revevernment activities. ural prioritization that should rocess. It also decreases the nding. es potentially could be nated funding activities are stefully.
districts to cover union cons another $1 per thousand e: between $355 and $590
xes on petroleum products
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PU BLICATION OF THE FREED OM
OREGON LAWMAKERS HAPPY TO CONSIDER BILLS THAT AID UNIONS WHILE IGNORING THE WORKERS THEY EXPLOIT By BOAZ DILLON, Labor Policy Analyst
t the Freedom Foundation, we seek to advance individual liberty, free markets and limited, accountable government. We do this by limiting the stranglehold public-sector unions hold over government at every level. Our focus is on notifying public employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME banning mandatory union membership or fees in public workplaces. Around the nation — and especially in Oregon — public-sector unions have a great deal of power in the Legislature. This power is bought and paid for with the hard-earned dollars of government employees who may or may not share the union’s political views. Since Janus, we have seen government employees empowered to vote with their feet, and the unions have been hurting for it. But rather than change their perspective and focus on representation like they claim, union leaders have decided to call in a few favors and demand the lawmakers on their payroll pass legislation that would allow them to ignore the workers’ newly affirmed rights. The union machine dutifully cranked out HB 2016, whose centerpiece is a provision that would alleviate the need to negotiate certain terms during collective bargaining agreement by simply codifying them into Oregon state law. The unions insist these are simply housekeeping measures. But with the force of law behind them unions can limit the Constitutional protections for public-sector employees affirmed in Janus. None of the bill is good, because its objective is to consolidate union power by enforcing policies that limit workers’ options and understanding of their rights. It is based on the belief that the worker is better off when information is withheld by the few and the powerful, who would manage their welfare for them. The Freedom Foundation rejects this belief, and instead insists that if the worker knows their rights and chooses what to do with his or her money and loyalty, their lives will be better. It is in that vein that HB 3072 was submitted to the House Committee on Business and Labor. The bill would enshrine two important principles into law:
to fund government activities related to toxics: $165 million. 2SHB 1087 imposes a 0.58 percent payroll tax to fund a state-run long-term care benefit program: $1.3billion in 2021-23 E2SHB 1873 imposes taxes on vapor products to fund health information services and training: $27.5-plus million. Paying back union donors. SHB 1195 Practically ends an individual’s ability to seek the enforcement of campaign finance laws. The Freedom Foundation has prompted many enforcement actions and penalties against union bad actors. SHB 1575 Gives extraordinary latitude to union operators for dues collection and adds hurdles for those wishing to opt out of a government union. SHB 5297 Allows union operatives to organize to collect dues from assistant attorneys general.
n the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement can never include a provision that would require a worker who has opted out of membership to pay member dues, fees or other assessments to the labor organization; and, n any public-sector employee can end union payments by submitting a signed, written request. And when the union receives this statement, it must cease making the deductions immediately. HB 3072 would protect the workers, not the union, while HB 2016 would protect the union from the workers. HB 3072 represents a belief that workers know best what benefits their unique situation and their freedom while HB 2016 openly restricts it. Although HB 3072 never even received a hearing, bills of this nature deserve consideration in the Oregon Legislature. After a dramatic back and forth between the house minority and majority regarding HB 2016, it passed out of the House on straight party lines.
7
8
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
FIVE YEARS LATER, SEIU 503 HANDS OVER DUES
G
loria, an Oregon public employee, first tried to opt out of SEIU 503 in 2012 based on her religious objection to the union’s principles and practices. And under state law, her request should have been honored. But it wasn’t. She followed the necessary procedures to the letter, explaining her objections in writing to the union, but she never received any response and dues continued to be deducted from her paychecks. In fact, the amounts taken represented full union dues in addition to a separate charge for political activities that SEIU 503 takes over and above union dues. Over the next six years, Gloria attempted to get in touch with SEIU 503
By REBEKAH MILLARD, Litigation Counsel
repeatedly, but union officials never even acknowledged her efforts. She called. She wrote. She sent her requests by U.S. mail, fax, email and even delivered a copy in person. All to no avail. In June 2018, however, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Janus v. AFSCME that allowed all public employees — not just those with religious objections, but everyone — to opt out. Elated, Gloria sent yet another email to SEIU 503, asking why dues were still being deducted from her paychecks. Again … crickets.
Oregon Update
Highlighting the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.
In desperation, Gloria reached out to the Freedom Foundation for help. Its attorneys immediately sent a formal demand letter to SEIU 503 asking for a review of Gloria’s membership status, a copy of any membership card SEIU 503 had for Gloria and reimbursement of the dues wrongfully taken. When the union continued to stonewall, the Freedom Foundation threatened to file a lawsuit in federal court. This time, the union agreed to cease the dues deduction and enclosed a check for just over $600. Gloria wasn’t satisfied, but when Freedom Foundation attorneys contacted the union officials, they produced a membership application apparently signed by Gloria in 2005. Gloria was shocked. She had no memory of having signed it, but it was unmistakably her signature. As with many public-sector employees, union membership authorizations are presented as part of initial employment documents, without explanation, and employees often don’t even realize what they are signing or that they have the option to not sign. A careful examination of the document’s fine print, however, revealed that, under the collective bargaining agreement in effect at the time, employees had the right to opt out after giving “written notice,” which Gloria had done countless times. Perhaps in tacit acknowledgment of this, SEIU 503’s response included a sizeable additional check for Gloria, reimbursing her for seven years of wrongfully withheld dues. After seven years of wrangling, and thanks in large part to the Freedom Foundation’s intervention, Gloria’s paycheck — all of it — is finally coming to her.
TEACHER WALKOUT EXPOSES OEA’s ULTERIOR MOTIVES
O
n May 8, the Oregon Education Association led a statewide strike in what called a “Day of Action.” Walkout marches organized by the largest teacher’s union in Oregon took place in Portland, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Bend and Salem. The strike was modeled after the #RedForEd marches first seen last year in West Virginia. The stated goal of the strikes was to encourage the state Legislature to pass HB 3437— misleadingly dubbed the “Student Success Act.” The bill, which currently sits in the Oregon State Senate, would impose nearly $2 billion in new, job-killing taxes on certain businesses, allegedly to be used to fund education. Because the union-led strike attracted enough teachers to participate, and numerous districts were either unwilling or unable to provide enough substitutes, many schools throughout the state were forced to shut down for the entire day. In turn, certain districts were required to add another school day to the end of the calendar day to make up for the strike. Although this can appear to be a fair compromise, it can be burdensome to the summer schedules of families and educators alike. Others, however, were unable to do, thus requiring all employees in the district, such as the Bethel School District in Eugene, to take a day without pay. For households in which both partners are educators, this can be somewhat hurtful.
It is also important to note that in
By BOAZ DILLON, Labor Policy Analyst
many of these districts there are educators who did not support a strike, including some who are no longer union members. Yet they were still denied the opportunity to go to work on May 8. The union strike will affect school districts across the state, causing some sort of closure in 24 different districts. Oregonians are required to pay taxes, and education is a public right for every child. The OEA essentially held education hostage for a day to grandstand and flex its muscles to Oregonians and the state Legislature. What’s also important to note is the influence OEA already holds with
state lawmakers. As one of the largest public-sector unions in the state, and one of the most powerful lobby groups within the Legislature, is it really necessary for them to go to these lengths to get its message across — particularly when there are sympathetic Democratic majorities in both houses? Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME last June, stripping public-sector unions’ ability to deduct compulsory fees from nonmembers, government unions across the nation have been scrambling to downplay its effects. The #RedForEd day strike across the Beaver State was nothing more or less than a political stunt — albeit one that hurts educators across the state who did not wish to participate and thousands of students deprived of a needed school day.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
9
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
BEST OF THE BLOG With help from the Freedom Foundation, my dues deductions have finally stopped “My union has agreed to cease deductions based on a document I was cornered into signing that would pledge my support for 1 year. “I signed it in June of last year, so there are two months left on that pledge. They say they will no longer take deductions at the point of that document expiring. They recieved my opt out letter and responded claiming they will continue taking dues until June 26, 2019.
UNIONS FIGHTING WORKERS’ RIGHTS AT THEIR OWN PERIL
“My union takes members money and never puts it to good use, there is no good reason to pay for a service that does not provide what is promised. “Thanks for providing a resource to those of us fed up with unions power and money grab.”
MAY 3, 2019
O
ld habits die hard, especially those involving the use of government force for private financial gain. Washington’s public-sector labor unions know this all too well. For decades, they benefited from state laws requiring public employees to pay unions as a condition of employment. State laws even require government employers to withhold dues from employees’ paychecks on unions’ behalf. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME — which recognized the First Amendment protects employees from having to subsidize government unions against their will — presented unions with a choice: Retain as much of the status quo as possible through political force or use Janus as an opportunity to evolve into member services organizations based on choice and value. Unfortunately, unions chose the status quo. Legislation introduced by Rep. Monica Stonier, a teacher’s union activist, and recently passed by the state legislature seeks to shield unions from Janus by making it difficult in practice for public employees to exercise their constitutional rights. House Bill 1575 speaks for itself. As written, unions could sign public employees up for dues deductions in writing, electronically or via “recorded voice authorization.” But dues cancellations could only be submitted in writing. Additionally, the bill requires dues cancellations be submitted to the union instead of the employer, allowing unions to restrict when such requests will be honored. For instance, unions like the Washington Federation of State Employees only accept resignations 10 days per year. Only after an employee satisfies the union’s arbitrary requirements will it direct the employer to stop garnishing dues from the employee’s wages.
AUSTIN By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director
As for signing employees up via “recorded voice authorization,” think telemarketing on steroids. Because the employer collects the dues, employees need not provide any payment information to the union. However obtained, a simple “yes” over the phone can lock the employee into a year of dues deductions with limited ability to cancel thereafter. On the Senate floor, Sen. Rebecca Saldaña contended the Attorney General would prosecute any “inappropriate” behavior by unions just like unscrupulous businesses are held to account by state consumer protection laws. Unfortunately, unions are categorically exempt from the state Consumer Protection Act. The bill also rigs the rules for future union organizing by stripping public employees of the ability to vote on whether to unionize in state-administered secret ballot elections. Instead, union organizers would confront employees one-on-one and collect “votes” in person. If a union gathers votes from more than half of the employees it seeks to represent, it turns them in to the Public Employment Relations Commission and is certified without an actual election every taking place. While debating HB 1575 in the House, Rep. Timm Ormsby defended the legislation by describing unions as “perversely democratic.” Though spoken sarcastically, Ormsby’s word choice could hardly have been more accurate. Lastly, HB 1575 limits unions’ liability under state law for taking money from public employees illegally. Legalized coercion is a powerful drug, but the sooner Washington’s government unions kick the habit, the better.
n
n
n
TRUMP ADMIN ENDS 2014 REGULATION ALLOWING STATES TO SKIM, DIVERT HOMECARE PAYMENTS INTO UNIONS’ POCKETS “What sickening corruption! The gall and greed of these Democrat-supported unions is intolerable. Of course the mainstream fanatics will ignore this terrific news, which makes them real yellow journalism. We must remember that it started under Clinton according to the above article, but continued under Obama, whose administration tried to cover it up. What else is new? This is what we can expect Democrats to do, stick it to the middle class for their unions and lobbyists and hide the truth.” Online comment from Mimi0676 BPR Biz & Politics May 4, 2019
10
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
FREEDOM IN ACTION UNIONS KEEP DEDUCTING DUES WITHOUT CONSENT By KEVIN MOONEY Reprinted from the DAILY SIGNAL April 30, 2019
W
hen Fremont, Calif.-based special needs instructor Bethany Mendez looks at her paycheck, she is regularly reminded of how her employer violates her First Amendment rights daily. Just a few weeks before school let out last May, unexpected visitors showed up in Bethany Mendez’s classroom. They didn’t come to discuss the nuts and bolts of education or the work the teacher was doing to assist young students with learning disabilities. Instead, the visitors wanted to know why she was leaving the teachers union, and if she fully understood the ramifications of resigning her membership. “This made me very angry and upset to actually have them come to my classroom during instructional time during the day,” Mendez told The Daily Signal in an interview. “I thought the meeting was regarding a student who might have to go into one of my classes. But these were union representatives who showed up in my classroom to question me as to why I was leaving the union.” Mendez teaches elementary school students with learning disabilities in California’s Fremont Unified School District. Since she had her own bouts with dyslexia when she was roughly the same age as her students, Mendez explains, she became motivated to become a teacher and devote herself to assisting children who require specialized instruction. For union officials to interrupt her instructional time, Mendez thought, was inappropriate and overly intrusive. “I struggled with dyslexia when I was little, and that was due to a vision problem,” Mendez, 35, said. “But I was able to have surgery to fix it. For a lot of these kids, it’s a brain-wiring issue and it involves how their brain interprets visual information. My goal is to help children learn and to avoid the embarrassment of not being able to read in the third and fourth grades. I’m passionate about helping kids to bridge that gap.” “It would be fine to have a friendly conversation outside of class, but to actually have two people come to my class while I was teaching and ask these questions I thought was a little offensive,” she said. “They asked if I knew what I was doing and if I knew what I would be giving up. My answer is I think everyone should have a choice to either opt in or opt out of joining the union.” Last June, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory union dues and fees for public sector workers. In their decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the justices said “agency shop” laws requiring nonunion government workers to pay union fees violate the First Amendment rights of workers who object to the political agenda of public employee unions. In March, Mendez, joined with four other teachers to file a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the California Teachers Association and several local affiliates, alleging that the teachers unions continued to deduct dues from their paychecks in violation of the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling. The lawsuit also names the National Education Association, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, local school districts, and
local unions as defendants. Contrary to what union officials have argued, the teachers who signed union membership cards last year did not provide the California Teachers Association or local affiliates with “affirmative consent” to deduct dues, Mariah Gondeiro, a lawyer with the Freedom Foundation who represents the suing teachers, told The Daily Signal. “These membership forms don’t include sufficient waiver language as required under Janus,” Gondeiro said, adding, “The unions are arguing they can lock people into these contracts because they signed these forms. But they don’t tell employees that they have an option to not fund the union. They don’t tell people that they are leaving out important facts. The teachers can’t consent to something they didn’t know about, and they did not know their rights.” Under the high court’s Janus ruling, teachers and other public employees must offer “affirmative consent” before a union may withhold fees from their paychecks, Gondeiro said. In his opinion for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said automatic deduction of union fees from a nonmember’s wages without consent violates free speech rights. The Freedom Foundation, a free market think tank based in Washington state, filed an amicus brief in the Janus case asking the Supreme Court to outlaw “opt out” arrangements that put the burden on nonmembers to halt collection of union fees from their paychecks. Public employees must make a deliberate choice to “opt in” to paying union fees, Alito said on behalf of the court majority, writing: 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. By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed. Mendez says she attempted to opt out last fall from the California Teachers Association and her local union. But there was a catch. Because Mendez signed the membership recommitment form, union representatives informed the teacher that she was locked in until this coming June. The form contained “fine print” and “a clause” that said teachers could withdraw from membership only during a 30-day window beginning when they signed the form. Audrey Stewart, a fellow plaintiff who teaches in Hayward Unified School District, says she is familiar with the tactics unions use to keep dues and fees flowing in from teachers who prefer not to be members. Stewart said she also has a hard time believing that her union spends only about $10 a year on politics. Stewart, a teacher for 30 years, told The Daily Signal that she often has found herself in a hostile work environment because she differs with the political stance of teachers’ unions on a range of issues. “I don’t want to pay for the unions’ politics,” she said. “I always said they could represent me as far as employment is concerned,
but they shouldn’t have a place in my political life.” Although unions were required to refund nonchargeable political expenditures that weren’t part of the collective bargaining process even before the Janus ruling, Stewart isn’t convinced the amount of her refunds measure up with what the unions actually spend on politics. “They have been issuing this $5 bill to me twice a year, and I have to go down to the office of my local union and pick it up because that’s what they are claiming is the [refundable] amount spent for political purposes,” Stewart said. “So, they are saying it’s basically $10 a year they spend on politics. This is really a joke. This has been going on for 30 years, and I find it odd that it’s never increased either. It’s always a cash payment in an envelope.” Stewart says she signed her membership recommitment form on May 9, 2018, at the behest of union officials. The form said it was necessary for her and other teachers to sign to support colleagues. “There was no rhyme or reason to these recommitment cards,” she said. “I signed it because I was told it was to support my fellow teachers. But I later told my union representative that I found this recommitment form awfully suspicious because they front-loaded this knowing this (Janus) case was coming and it might not go in their favor, and they have locked these teachers in. I don’t even know if this recommitment form was a legal membership document.” Gondeiro, the lawyer with Freedom Foundation, told The Daily Signal the forms signed by teachers last year should not pass legal muster. “What we are doing with the class-action suit is we are trying to illustrate what affirmative consent looks like,” she said. “We’re trying to take Janus to an extra step because apparently the unions can’t abide by the law,” she said. “We want to put in plain text what type of notice they have to give workers, because they need all the direction they can get. We want in the contract that they have a right to not financially support the union, and that by signing the agreement they are waiving their First Amendment rights. If they don’t include that type of language in the contract, there is no affirmative consent.” Gondeiro also said the unions are making it difficult for teachers who have become aware of their rights to opt out, using restrictive window periods and other cumbersome requirements that involve writing letters to union representatives and payroll personnel saying they want to leave the union and stop automatic deduction of dues. “I sent letters to the California Teachers Association and to my local telling them I was going to opt out,” Stewart said. “They wrote back to me to thank me for my inquiry. But I wasn’t inquiring, I was telling them I was leaving.” Stewart, who teaches at both the elementary and high school levels, told The Daily Signal “strange incidents” took place after she made it clear she wanted to leave the union. Her elementary school classroom was “ransacked” several times after hours in February, Stewart said, and around this time she was “verbally attacked” by a union leader while walking up a path to the high school. The lead plaintiff in the teachers’ lawsuit says she wants to make a clean break. Mendez, entering her 13th year as a teacher, says she had wanted to withdraw from the California Teachers Association, but until recently was content with her local union. “The CTA has always misrepresented me, but I was willing to stay in the local union,” she said. “But after they withheld information, misled us and accepted poor salary and benefits in my district, I wanted out of both the state and local union.”
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS IN PRINT
April 28, 2019
STONIER EXPECTED TO PRIORITIZE EDUCATION ISSUES BASED ON HER POLITICAL CAREER “Stonier has defended her bills, saying they ensure workers know what benefits they’re opting out of. But Maxford Nelsen, director of Labor Policy at the Freedom Foundation, called her efforts “a war on public employees’ civil liberties” and pointed out that she’s a member of a union that would benefit from her bills.” ONLINE
April 30, 2019
WASHINGTON STATE SIGNS LAW TO BLUNT JANUS IMPACT “The legislation, HB 1575, says public workers “cannot get their money back,” according to the Chinook Observer. Conservative groups such as the Freedom Foundation and the National Right to Work Foundation have been filing lawsuits to force retroactive refunds of fair share fees.”
ON LINE
April 28, 2019
KAMALA HARRIS VOWS TO END RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS “In a decision last year, the Supreme Court ruled that unions cannot skim wages for union dues because it violates the First Amendment. The Freedom Foundation has estimated that right-to-work laws have deprived unions of $36 million in fees.” IN PRINT
March 26, 2019
WANT OUT OF YOUR UNION? CONSERVATIVE GROUPS ARE RECRUITING CALIFORNIA PUBLIC WORKERS FOR LAWSUITS “Californians are not going to see reform on things like education and pension liability as long as government unions maintain the strength and power that they currently have, that they’ve had for 40 years,” said Bob Wickers, who leads California operations for the Freedom Foundation, the organization supporting Mendez in her lawsuit. His group has its headquarters in Olympia, Washington. With Janus, it expanded its California footprint with plans to seek out public employees by email and in person.”
Simply appalling In an Aug. 31, 2018, article in The Unionist, former SEIU 925 president Kim Cook described how the Freedom Foundation did battle with her union: “The Freedom Foundation used every conceivable method for talking to Local 925 members — they got lists of union members through public information requests, and then used mail, email, telephone, website, videos to get their ... message out.
Kim Cook, left, in 2018 with outspoken socialist and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom she described as a “rock star.”
Most appalling, they went door to door, visiting members at home. I recognize all those tactics because they’re the ones we use. At election time, and during new organizing drives ... we used those same tactics.”
She’s absolutely right, too. And because we did, SEIU 925 lost 4,500 of its members. That’s why Kim Cook is now the union’s former president.
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
APRIL 26 The Freedom Foundation announces it is poised to take legal action should the state of Oregon approve a proposed collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME 75 that reward workers for union service and loyalty rather than workplace seniority. The previous week, AFSCME 75 representatives put these new “seniority-based-on-membership” provisions into the new CBA it is negotiating with the Department of Corrections.
the California Teachers Association (CTA), challenging the so-called “membership cards” the union pressured several teachers into signing without their affirmative consent as required under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. CTA’s failure to obtain the plaintiffs’ clear and informed consent before deducting dues violates the spirit of Janus, which was intended to protect the First Amendment rights of public-sector workers who don’t wish to be unionized.
MAY 7
MAY 13
President Trump re-tweets a Daily Caller article hailing his decision to scrap a 2014 Medicaid regulation allowing states to divert payments meant for caretakers into the pockets of unions. The reform was largely the brainchild of the Freedom Foundation, and the article mentions the organization prominently, noting: “Repealing this illegal regulation is a major victory for caregivers and those who care about protecting Medicaid from being looted by special interests,” Maxford Nelsen, director of labor policy for the Freedom Foundation, said. “States have no business, legally or morally, diverting Medicaid funds to unions.”
The Freedom Foundation learns that 11 national legal heavyweights — including the Cato Institute, the Center for Law and Justice, the Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and others — have submitted amicus briefs in support of its recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of a politically motivated 5-4 ruling issued in January by the Washington State Supreme Court. The case in question deals with a 2014 complaint filed by union surrogates alleging the Freedom Foundation was required to report pro bono legal services it provided to several political activists in Washington state as a campaign contribution. The case is frivolous on its face but has important Constitutional ramifications because it attempts to place limits around who a nonprofit can assist with legal counsel.
MAY 11 The Freedom Foundation files a lawsuit against
MAY 15 Freedom Foundation Litigation Counsel Sydney Phillips argues before the Washington State Supreme Court that a 2016 ruling issued against the organization by a lower court and subsequently upheld on appeal would make a shambles of the state’s public information laws. The case deals with a 2015 records request filed by the Freedom Foundation for documents from four University of Washington employees. UW officials agreed the nearly 4,000 pages of documents were a matter of public record and were inclined to release them. The action was opposed, however, by SEIU 925 — which wasn’t even recognized as the bargaining representative of these four employees. The union sought, however, to prevent disclosure of public records involving one, Robert Wood, who was unhappy about how UW was treating him and other employees and had become involved with 925’s (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to unionize the university faculty. MAY 16 Costa Mesa, Calif., resident Maria Quezambra files a federal lawsuit against the union representing her, alleging it forged her signature on a membership card, illegally took dues from her paycheck for over five years, then trespassed on her property against her express wishes to bully her into maintaining membership. Quezambra, a single parent who has cared for her disabled daughter under the state’s In-Home Supportive Service Provider (IHSS) program since 2012, claims she never agreed to join United Domestic Workers (UDW) Local 3930, yet the union began taking dues from her in 2013.
Guess what nationally respected conservative personality will be the keynote speaker at the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquet.
Sept. 21, 2019 Save the date.