Biden fires Freedom Foundation’s Max Nelsen .........
4 6
Trump’s first act as ex-president? Quitting his union... SEIU has a major problem with sexual harassment....
MARCH 2021
7
LIVING LIBERTY A Publication of the Freedom Foundation
SCOTUS asked to hear case that could invalidate all public-sector union contracts
Electronic Service Requested
Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507
O
ver the past three years, since the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Janus v. AFSCME that mandatory union membership and dues in the public workplace were a violation of the First Amendment, tens of thousands of government employees have successfully opted out — despite the determined opposition of unions and their allies in elected office. But if the justices side with the Freedom Foundation in a new case just appealed to the court in February, the whole script will flip. Instead of millions of public employees nationwide fighting to get out, the unions will literally have no members — or money — and be forced to work fulltime in hopes of coaxing members back in. Freedom Foundation attorneys on Feb. 11 filed a writ of certiorari with the court in Belgau v. Inslee, which deals with several Washington state employees whose unions continued to deduct dues from their paycheck after they had requested their freedom. The unions argued that workers can terminate their membership but must continue paying dues because they signed a membership form limiting out-outs only to a two-week window every year. Other lawsuits have been filed disputing aspects of the unions’ claims, but Belgau is the first to argue they are all irrelevant under any circumstances.
By JEFF RHODES, VP for News & Information
Belgau relies on language from Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Janus emphasizing that: 1. (n)either 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; and, 2. (b)y agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed. In layman’s terms, that means a signed membership card isn’t enough. Before it is considered valid, the union must first be able to prove the worker understood he or she had the right not to sign — and voluntarily waived that right. “Belgau isn’t some radical new idea,” said James Abernathy, Freedom Foundation legal counsel. “It’s just a corollary to Janus — and it wouldn’t even be necessary if the states and unions had complied with the ruling to begin with.” Abernathy concluded, “Belgau provides the Supreme Court an opportunity to re-state what already should have been clear to courts like the 9th Circuit: Public employees deserve to know their rights before government employers and unions can begin siphoning their wages.” Freedom Foundation National Director Aaron Withe added, “With the help of politicians corrupted by dues money, unions have suppressed public employees’ First Amendment rights by restricting their ability to decline union association altogether. “The justices,” he continued, “have a golden opportunity here to reinforce their clearly stated intent in Janus — that public employees can freely choose to pay, or not pay, government unions.”
VOLUME 32, ISSUE 3
Our mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.
Publisher: Tom McCabe Editor: Jeff Rhodes
Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482 FreedomFoundation.com
“Quote” ~ of the month ~
[2 ]
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION O F THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
CONTENTS PAGE 3 LEADERSHIP MEMO By TOM McCABE The Left’s assault on free speech nationally mirrors unions’ attacks on the Freedom Foundation locally.
PAGE 5
PAGE 4 THE CASE FOR FREEDOM California continues its assault on the First Amendment.
THE FACE OF FREEDOM
By ASHLEY VARNER
By JEFF RHODES
Biden’s first expression of unity is to fire Freedom Foundation’s Nelsen from dispute panel.
For his first official act as ex-president, Trump gives unions the back of his hand.
By JASON DUDASH Reprinted from REDSTATE.com
By SHELLA SADOVNIK California settles case after Newsom caves.
Teachers unions are the real reason why all those classroooms are still empty.
By HUNTER TOWER Gov. Wolf ’s budget scheme would make Pennsylvania’s economic woes even worse.
OREGON UPDATE
PAGE 9
SPOTLIGHT ON CALIFORNIA
By BEN STRAKA
By SAM COLEMAN
Freedom Foundation urges Oregon AG, state legislative leaders to uphold the law.
California’s public unions can’t spin these numbers.
By PARKER HOLLINGSHEAD
By SAM COLEMAN SEIU has a problem with sexual harassment it doesn’t want you or its members to know about.
Commercials chronicle Casey’s Restaurant’s struggles.
PAGE 10
FREEDOM IN ACTION By AARON WITHE Reprinted from the DAILY WIRE
DAVID H. OSBORNE Former member of the Federal Services Impasse Panel who, like Freedom Foundation (FSIP) staff member Maxford Nelsen, was summarily fired by incoming President Joe Biden because he wasn’t a pawn of public-sector unions. Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 2021
Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the election of any elected official or candidate.
What They Said & What They Meant
PAGES 6-7 THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
PAGE 8
“What makes this clearing of the decks different is Mr. Biden’s close ties to powerful labor unions and the troubling reality that those unions will end up before the FSIP over issues that could change the way the federal government serves vulnerable Americans and cost taxpayers billions. ”
By BEN STRAKA Don’t let them kid you Unions love free riders.
By TIMOTHY SNOWBALL
Government unions have been stealing dues from workers for years. Now the Supreme Court has a chance to do something about it.
Freedom Foundation’s Friends, Foes Weigh in On Our Actions.
PAGE 11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS
PAGE 12
ACTION TIMELINE
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
A
LEADERSHIP
The Left’s assault on free speech nationally mirrors unions’ attacks on the Freedom Foundation locally ny lip service paid by liberals to the concept of free speech is utterly meaningless. What matters is what they actually do. And on that score, the record is crystal clear. Simply stated, liberals only care about free speech for their own crackpot ideas. But when it comes to alternative points of view, no form of suppression is ever off the table as far as they’re concerned. In a contest based on substance, leftist ideas lose every time — and they know it. Their answer is to simply avoid any possibility of a sideby-side comparison of the inferior product they’re peddling by stifling any and all dissent. Not surprisingly, the government employee unions that provide the lion’s share of the funding for the Left’s candidates and causes have enthusiastically embraced this philosophy. By any reasonable definition of the word, public-sector unions are a monopoly, and you don’t become or remain a monopoly by playing the game on a level playing field with your competitors. Over many decades, government unions have evolved into perhaps the most powerful special interest in this country — and they’ve done it by funding their activities with someone else’s money. The Freedom Foundation has fought to break this labor-left cartel since its founding in 1991. And starting in 2014, public employee unions have been our sole focus. Consequently, silencing us isn’t an idle pursuit with them. In a very real sense, the unions’ continued existence — and by extension, the future of the Left in general — requires it. The unions can’t compete with the Freedom Foundation in a debate over the issues, and they never try. They’re terrified by the prospect of their members hearing the truth, so they do whatever it takes to keep us from telling it. What choice do they have? Informing their members about their rights themselves? Actually respecting that right to decide for themselves whether union representation makes sense? Working harder to provide a service members might actually consider worth paying for voluntarily rather than depending on corrupt politicians to pass laws taking the choice out of their hands? Our battles with the unions are frequently waged in the courtroom because, for generations, the unions have simply operated above the law — or believed they could. At one point several years ago, public-sector unions in Washington and Oregon decided to bury the Freedom Foundation under a tidal wave of frivolous lawsuits, hoping the sheer expense of defending ourselves would bankrupt the organization. The strategy backfired, but our victories didn’t come cheap. And even when they’re caught red-handed, the unions would rather change the law than change their crooked ways. Following the U.S. Supreme Court 2018 ruling that government employees can’t be forced to join a union or pay
3
MEMO
LIVING LIBERTY
dues or fees to one, unions pressured their cronies in elected ofBy TOM McCABE, CEO fice to pass legislation making it more difficult for the Freedom Foundation to contact the workers to inform them of their rights. Meanwhile, in 2016 Washington voters were presented with a union-financed ballot measure, Initiative 1501, whose supporters said it would crack down on identity theft. In fact, 1501’s purpose was to insulate government employees from public disclosure laws that have always applied to government employees in hopes of preventing the Freedom Foundation from obtaining workers’ contact information and informing them of their rights. We’re still litigating that lie. Keep in mind, the Freedom Foundation gains nothing when a union member opts out, but the union loses up to $1,000 in dues for each defection. And yet unions are permitted unfettered access to the same contact information we’re too often denied. Shortly after I came aboard in 2014 and narrowed the Freedom Foundation’s focus, a collection of public-sector unions in Oregon and Washington created and funded a “The Freedom dark-money splinter operation known as the Northwest Foundation is Accountability Project, whose stronger than only objective was to smear the Freedom Foundation. ever, while It did this on its own webpublic-sector site and Facebook page, but also by disseminating its toxic unions continue message to the media. to flounder When this had little effect, NWAP went personal, wherever we do sending defamatory mailings to the neighbors of business. The Freedom Foundation staff, bad news for the its board members and donors in an effort to intimiunions is that it date them into silence. won’t be too much Instead, it merely confirmed our activities longer before were doing damage to the unions and steeled our there’s no place resolve to keep right on doin this country ing the same thing. The examples are endwhere we don’t.” less, and what have the unions gained from all of it? The Freedom Foundation is stronger than ever, while public-sector unions continue to flounder wherever we do business. The bad news for the unions is that it won’t be too much longer before there’s no place in this country where we don’t.
D O S O M E T H I N G F O R F R E E D O M T O D AY
SUPPORT THE FIGHT!
The Freedom Foundation is the only organization on the West Coast that
takes on the hard fights. Every day we stand up to ensure freedom for future generations. Every gift is an investment in the future.
CALL (360) 956-3482, OR VISIT WWW.FREEDOMFOUNDATION.COM
4
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
E
very American has the right to speak his or her mind without fear of being punished by the government. This protection applies to all of us, no matter our position in society. School children, public workers and, yes, even public officials. The ability of public officials to speak their minds on important issues is particularly important. If officials are unable to voice their opinions on proposed public policies (like reigning in massive budget shortfalls due to the existence of public-sector unions), the voters are unable to exercise democratic oversight and make their own preferences known. So in the majority of the United States, the free speech rights of officials are recognized and protected. Unless you live in California. In California, the government has made it illegal for public officials to give their employees any information about their own constitutional rights. Not only does this “gag order” make little sense, but it violates the First Amendment. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Janus v. AFSCME that public-sector workers have a constitutional right not to give any money to a union. If they decide to anyway, they’re waiving this right, and that waiver must be clearly demonstrated to their employer. Janus overturned 40 years of precedent allowing workers’ pay to be skimmed by the unions and was hailed as a victory for workers’ rights. But unfortunately for California workers, on the very day Janus was decided, Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed SB 866 into law. The timing of this bill was no coincidence. SB 866 was specifically designed to prevent employees from knowing about their rights. Under the measure, public employers telling employees anything that could “deter or discourage” them from becoming or staying union members (like telling them about their constitutional rights, for example), could be accused of a labor violation and hauled in front of PERB. As a result, public officials across the state must bite their tongues out of fear that one
California continues its assault on free speech
By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL, Litigation Counsel
verbal misstep could land them in legal hot water. But all is not yet lost. Because the gag order distinguishes between one kind of speech it likes (pro-union) and one kind of speech it doesn’t (the truth), it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which forbids the government from making this kind of distinction. Further, because it discourages speech
that public officials would otherwise want to make, it is also unconstitutional. Hence, the legal grounds for challenging the gag order are strong. What’s missing is a group of public officials in California with the guts to push back on this blatant tyranny. Unless they’re willing to fight for the First Amendment, hundreds of thousands of public workers will remain in the dark about their constitutional rights, and the unions in California will continue to reap a windfall in money to be used in pushing leftist politics. The choice is no choice at all.
Don’t let them kid you — unions love ‘free riders’
W
henever the Freedom Foundation lets public employees know they no longer have to be a member of a union — and pay dues for the “privilege” — our friends the government unions inevitably wail about “free riders.” That’s a slang expression for someone getting something they’re not paying for — in this case union representation. The government unions insist it’s unfair they be required to provide a free service. And you know what? In some ways, they’re right. The only question is who the practice is unfair to. That’s why the Freedom Foundation is pleased to support HB 3119, a newly introduced bill in the Oregon Legislature. The measure, authored by state Rep. Mike Nearman (R-Independence) would end the alleged burden of “free riders” by freeing unions from the responsibility of speaking for even nonmembers.
employees is based on merit: By BEN STRAKA, Policy Analyst
Rather than the current arrangement, in which all employees are “represented,” the bill proposes a system in which there are “union” and “independent” employees. According to the wording: “If an independent employee does not pay union dues or any other assessment to defray the cost of a labor organization’s services…(t)he labor organization is not required to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the independent employee or otherwise represent the independent employee in the independent employee’s employment relations with the public employer.” As you might expect, the labor arrangement with independent
“A public employer shall determine the wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of an independent employee based on the independent employee’s education, experience, training, skills and performance.” Somewhat ironically, one shouldn’t expect Oregon’s Democrat-dominated legislature to give the bill a hearing. Could it be the responsibility for representing everyone in a given bargaining group — members and nonmembers alike — isn’t the burden the unions claim it is? If passed, the bill would create a new dynamic that wouldn’t be patterned after the labor vs. management model, but a partnership between labor and management based on what the employee could offer and what management needed. This alone could increase productivity and morale.
But despite what they may say, a partnership is the last thing unions want. Recent history shows that government unions have enough allies in the Legislature to amend the state’s collective bargaining laws when it suits them — meaning they would likely have no problem shedding the statutory “burden” of representing nonmembers themselves. But you know what? They’ve never tried. That’s because these workers aren’t free riders. Under a union protection clause, they’re “forced” riders. The best thing about HB 3119 is that it exposes the essence — and problems — of socialism, which is undeniably what unions are based on. In the same way a Marxist economy builds walls, so does the union workforce need to build walls — though in this case the wall is the exclusive representation clause.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
THE FACE OF FREEDOM
Biden’s first expression of ‘unity’ is to fire Freedom Foundation’s Nelsen from labor dispute panel
F
reedom Foundation Labor Policy Director Max Nelsen got fired last month. Not by us, mind you. We couldn’t be prouder of our young dynamo. Since his appointment by President Trump in 2019, Max Nelsen served as a member of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP), a powerful labor relations board that resolves collective bargaining disputes between federal agencies and government unions. In fact, the first decision of the FSIP under the Biden Administration — 145 pages in length — was written by Nelsen. Members of the FSIP serve five-year terms but can be dismissed by the president at any time. While it is customary for new administrations to remove and replace the FSIP members appointed by the previous administration, Biden moved to do so quicker than any modern administration. On Groundhog Day, Creepy Joe demanded the resignations of those FSIP members who had not already resigned. The two members who didn’t submit resignations by the end of the day — including Nelsen — were terminated. The move was cheered by federal employees’ unions and liberal columnists. An official for the largest such union — the American Federation of Government Employees — decried the Trump appointees as “a grotesque parade of horribles.” An official for the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers described Trump’s FSIP as “a ‘Who’s Who’ of union-busters and anti-government ideologues.”
T
What They
&
What They
By ASHLEY VARNER, VP for Communications
Given its “attacks on public-sector unions in Washington state,” Nelsen’s affiliation with the Freedom Foundation was listed as a prominent example in a celebratory article by The Los Angeles Times’ business columnist. In their statements to the press, union officials claimed to look forward to more “neutral” members being appointed by Biden. A columnist for the far-left publication Slate went so far as to accuse Trump’s FSIP of “consistently (defying) the panel’s legal obligations to remain a neutral arbiter.” In fact, federal law authorizes the FSIP to “take whatever action is necessary” to resolve disputes but the Times writer quickly undermined his own credibility by stating that Biden’s future appointees to the FSIP would be “expected” to “protect federal unions.” These firings and Biden’s unprecedented canning of National Labor Relations Board general counsel Peter Robb are just the beginning of Biden making good on his promise to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen.” But because unions’ interests are decidedly not the same as workers, much less taxpayers, the work of the Freedom Foundation in holding government unions accountable will be increasingly important in the coming years.
For his first official act as ex-president, Trump gives union the back of his hand here seems to be little consensus about what Donald Trump accomplished during his four years as president, but no one can quibble with his first official act as a private citizen. He opted out of his union. According to a story on the Fox News website, the ex-president terminated his longstanding membership in the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) after the union threatened to expel him in the wake of his handling of the mob takeover of the Capitol Building in January. Trump called SAG’s ploy a “blatant attempt at free media attention to distract from your dismal record as a union. Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me — besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas — as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors, who even recorded a video asking, ‘Why isn’t the union fighting for me?’ ” Trump was referring to a video posted last year by actors like Mark Hammill, Whoopi Goldberg and Morgan Freeman, among others, who slammed the union’s health plan benefit cuts. In the video, Goldberg asks: “Why isn’t the union fighting for me?” Meanwhile, the
5
By JEFF RHODES, VP for News & Information
former president slammed SAG for its “policy failures,” and further said its “disciplinary failures are even more egregious.” “I no longer wish to be associated with your union,” Trump wrote. “As such, this letter is to inform you of my immediate resigning from SAG-AFTRA.” He added, “You have done nothing for me.” Although SAG is a private-sector union representing motion picture and television performers, his letter of resignation could serve as a template for government employees struggling to opt out of SEIU, AFSCME, the Teamsters or any of countless teachers’ unions. “Why isn’t the union fighting for me?” Because you — and millions like you — have spent years looking the other way while a greedy, politically motivated special interest picked your pocket “for your own good.” But the jig is up. A series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings have made it easier for government employees to opt out, and thousands more are walking out every month. President Trump is no longer a public employee, but his actions set a great example for millions who still are.
What he said: “Pull all support, vocal and financial, from the Freedom Foundation. It seems they promote fascism.” What he meant: “I couldn’t give you a coherent definition of ‘facism’ if my life dependGARRY ed on it. Like all BREWSTER liberals, I know Vancouver, Wash. I can’t debate Facebook post ideas like those Jan. 9, 2020 the Freedom Foundation promotes intellectually, so I resort to name-calling. ‘Facist’ and ‘racist’ are my favorites because, while no one wants to be one, very few people actually actually know what one is.” n n n What he said: “The Freedom Foundation is nothing but a scam.” What he meant: “On the one hand, we have unions, which promote themselves as being pro-worker but have relied for generations on compulsory dues and are still trying everything in their power to limit their members’ freedom to choose for themselves. On the other, we have the Freedom BRAD KEELER Foundation, Spokane, Wash. which is Facebook post funded 100 Jan. 15 , 2021 percent through voluntary contributions from people who support its work. Who’s scamming who?” n n n What he said: “I hope the Freedom Foundation pays for its misdeeds. I think the organization stinks.” What he meant: “Thanks to Washington’s corrupt attorney general, the Freedom Foundation has several times been ordered to pay for things PHIL VENDITTI that aren’t University misdeeds at Place, Wash. all. Meanwhile, Instructor, unions consisClover Park tently get caught Technical College red-handed con- Facebook post cealing millions Dec. 9, 2020 of dollars in political activity but are allowed to settle for pennies on the dollar. This is my idea of how justice should work in a world that doesn’t stink.”
6
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
Teachers unions are the real reason all those classrooms are still empty By JASON DUDASH Reprinted from REDSTATE.com Feb. 10, 2021
T
hese days it seems the news is inundated with increasingly dire projections about how much longer our daily lives will be disrupted as public health officials struggle to get a handle on the global COVID-19 pandemic. A blip of hope has emerged, though, as most school districts across the country are now on track to return to some version of in-person learning. This news is considered long overdue and welcomed with open arms by weary parents, most of whom found themselves required to suddenly become part-time teachers in addition to their fulltime careers. The only population possibly more excited about the return to the classroom and a sense of normalcy than the parents is the students themselves. During the summer months, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) declared that schools should reopen for the educational, social, and mental health and well-being of school children. Both cautioned that prolonged absence of in-person education prevented children from important educational and social development, and both expressed concerns that nutritional and oversight of children’s home lives would be sorely neglected for low-income and at-risk kids. Both were correct. The results of prolonged remote learning have been disastrous for American students. According to a December article published on the NBC News website: Emergency rooms have seen a 24 percent increase in mental health-related visits from children ages 5 to 11 compared to last year. The increase among older kids is even higher — 31 percent. Food banks have been slammed with hungry families as an estimated 17 million children — many largely cut off from free school lunches — are now in danger of not having enough to eat. That’s an increase of more than 6 million hungry children compared to before the pandemic. Schools are struggling to teach students remotely or in classrooms in which children
wear masks and sit behind plastic shields. One national testing organization reported that the average student in grades 3-8 who took a math assessment this fall scored 5 to 10 percentile points behind students who took the same test last year, with Black, Hispanic and poor students falling even further behind. Classrooms have been unusually empty, with quarantines and sickness affecting attendance in face-to-face schools and computer issues interfering with online instruction. Some districts report that the number of students who’ve missed at least 10 percent of classes, which studies show could lead to devastating lifelong consequences, has more than doubled. And an estimated 3 million vulnerable students — who are homeless, in foster care, have disabilities or are learning English — appear to not be in school at all. Even worse, experts believe the pandemic is responsible for an alarming spike in rates of depression, substance abuse, and even suicide among students whose social safety net was ripped away with no warning. A Sept. 29 article in the Daily Signal points to studies showing that “(T)he stringent social-distancing measures put in place to combat the spread of COVID-19 have significantly worsened teen mental health. Because teenagers are social by nature and developmentally reliant on their peers, the pandemic has exacerbated mental health issues among an age cohort already vulnerable to begin with.” Despite all the dreadful things our students have experienced over the last year, however, not everyone is excited for them to return to the classroom. America’s teachers’ unions appear to be the loudest — and seemingly only — opposition to schools reopening. “The push to reopen schools is rooted in sexism, racism and misogyny”, the Chicago Teachers Union wrote in a famous, now-deleted tweet. Similarly, to absolutely no one’s surprise, an equally ludicrous union president from the Washington Education Association stat-
By JASON DUDASH, Oregon Director
ed that parents emailing school board members worried about the suicide risks present with their children are “ignorant,” and “another expression of white privilege.” A December report from Fox 5 in Las Vegas confirmed the Clark County School District lost 11 students to suicide in one semester. Some union pushback, though, is a bit less absurd and more honest about its intentions and desires. In July, a list of demands was published from United Teachers Los Angeles that would be required to be met before the 30,000 teachers represented by the union return to the classroom. Among the demands were defunding the police, Medicare for all, and a shutdown of all private charter schools. Similarly, the Oregon Education Association penned a letter asking that Gov. Kate Brown limit the number of Oregon students who could enroll in private online charter schools to continue receiving quality education. Each of these examples has at least one thing in common. At the top of the list is that while teachers’ unions care about a great deal of things, the last thing they care about is our students. Thankfully, it appears that while they wield a big stick, the teachers’ unions have overplayed their hand. Parents are furious. Those who can are putting their children in other educational settings and many are pressuring their state and local officials to stop taking their marching orders from union officials. The Chicago Teachers Union has lost the support of Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Rankand-file educators in Bellevue, Wash. voted to return to work over the continued objections of their union leaders. The California teachers’ unions may very well help get Gov. Gavin Newsom recalled. This isn’t a race or class issue. Prolonged remote learning is increasingly becoming a public health crisis in and of itself. America must re-open the schools. Not to do so is imprisoning children to a life without socialization they did not choose and cannot control or escape, on top of a dismal educational future. Jason Dudash is the Oregon director of the Freedom Foundation, a national nonprofit organization with the mission to advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
7
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
California settles case after Newsom caves
D
uring December, Pennsylvanians got passed over yet again by state government and the elected leaders who are bought and paid for by the union bosses. Last September, California schools were nowhere near the right track to reopen. Especially hurt by “zoom” education were children from disadvantaged backgrounds and children with special needs. Both of these categories of children require in-person attention for their development, and online classes did not meet these children’s diverse and urgent needs. Despite the call of California families that schools re-open in the fall, California Gov. Gavin Newsom did next to nothing. For this, you can thank the state’s teachers’ unions, which care more about “social justice” causes than they do about children. Epidemiological studies show that children (are) less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults, and that schools are not particularly dangerous places for the spread of the disease. Even though the science shows teachers were at minimal risk, the teachers’ unions — including the United Teachers Los Angeles and California Teachers’ Association — used the virus as an excuse and demanded a “wealth tax,” defunding of charter schools and single-payer healthcare before they would permit their teachers to return to work. Moreover, California’s Constitution only requires that children have a certain quantity of education, in the form of minutes spent in instruction. In doesn’t address the quality of that education. But even by this low standard, whatever the quality of education was prior to COVID-19 restrictions, distance learning wasn’t working. California was causing more harm to its students by not opening schools. To assist California’s children and families, the Freedom Foundation, on behalf of several concerned parents, filed suit in
By SHELLA SADOVNIK, Litigation Counsel
Shasta County against Newsom and several other school officials, including Shasta County Superintendent Jim Cloney and California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. The suit was initially filed on September 11, 2020. In the complaint, the plaintiffs sought declarative and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of the governor’s orders shutting down schools. As part of the argument to reopen schools, the Freedom Foundation cited studies, periodicals, an epidemiologist, the Centers for Disease Control, the American Academy of Pediatrics and numerous other sources to show that: n in-person instruction five days a week presents minimal risk of transmission; n there are greater risks of transmission inherent with part-time schooling as opposed to full time; n in-person instruction strengthens a child’s mental health and self-esteem; and, n in-person instruction provides access to vital mental health and social services like speech therapy and physical or occupational therapy. In response, and in a complete reversal of the original plan that shut down schools, Gov. Newsom has now allowed for the opening of local Shasta high schools for in-person instruction two days a week and has opened elementary schools for in-person instruction five days a week. Further, Newsom has announced a
Gov. Wolf ’s budget scheme would make Pennsylvania’s economic woes even worse
P
ennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s budget address delivered this week to the Pennsylvania State Legislature — remotely of course, for the first time in state history — promises to kill jobs and raise taxes. Naturally, he didn’t express it quite those words. But when your stated goals include things like raising minimum wage to $15 an hour and increasing school funding by almost $1.5 billion, it’s necessary to read between the lines. In an interview with NBC 10 Philadelphia, Wolf’s budget secretary Jen Swails explained, “The biggest part of that, $1.35 billion, would be distributed to schools to pay for their primary operations, like teacher salaries, operations costs and supplies, on top of the $6.8 billion they currently receive.” We’ve already witnessed half of Pennsylvania’s restaurant workers — 300,000 out of 600,000 — lose their jobs almost overnight because of Wolf’s draconian and dystopian mandates. We’ve heard parents angrily demand that public schools be reopened for in-person teaching because the science says it’s safe. And we’ve seen business owners ordered to close up shop and lose their life’s dream and lay off or fire their workers because of these ever-changing mandates. One would think the governor might be a bit more mindful of the people and industries he’s decimated. But no.
school reopening plan urging school districts to reopen in February. Most importantly, the accompanying rationale behind the governor’s re-opening plan for schools indicated a change in heart regarding the risks of in-person instruction, admitting that: n children get COVID-19 less often than adults; n when the do get sick, youngsters get less sick than adults; n children do not seem to be major sources of transmission—either to each other or to adults; n the social-emotional skills cultivated in the youngest grades are foundational for future wellbeing; n in-school learning results in lower rates of anxiety and depression; n higher rates of immunizations; and, n greater opportunity to learn social and emotional skills — such as self-awareness, social awareness, self-management and responsible decision-making. Perhaps not coincidentally, these new revelations were identical to many of plaintiffs’ claims in the lawsuit. Newsom had previously expressed that these very same assertions were “false and irrelevant.” With education moving swiftly toward in-person learning, the Freedom Foundation and the concerned parents and children involved in the Shasta County lawsuit moved to dismiss the lawsuit as a job well done. During these difficult times, the Freedom Foundation has never backed away from its responsibility to the community to ensure the government did not encroach on the basic rights and liberties of the people the government is supposed to serve. The Freedom Foundation’s fight for school re-openings is one such example.
I’LL HUFF ... AND I’LL PUFF ... AND I’LL RAISE YOUR TAXES SO MUCH IT’Ll MAKE YOUR HEAD SPIN.
By HUNTER TOWER, Pennsylvania Director
At the end of the day, someone has to pick up the tab for this. That’s just how basic economics works. And who might that be? Of course, it’s the hard-working taxpayers of our Commonwealth who’ve been dealt blow after blow from this administration. The model for this insanity is to raise state income taxes from 3.07 to 4.49 percent — a 46 percent increase. Can you and your family afford to live on less money in Pennsylvania? Don’t think so. Our state legislature last approved an income tax increase 17 years ago, in 2004. In a day and age where we’ve all had to make do with less, is it too much to think government could do the same — particularly since the state’s wounds are largely self-inflicted? Since announcing his run for the state house in 2013, the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) and Americans Federation of Teachers (AFT) have donated $2.35 million and $1.69 million, respectively, to Tom Wolf’s political war chest. Gov. Wolf has every intention of paying divi-
dends on that investment with your money. He’ll do the political bidding for his biggest donors, we’ll all suffer because of it. Unless, that is, public-sector employees recognize the direction this state is headed and recognize that their money is funding our collective downfall. Go to OptOutToday.com and learn how you can do your part to expose the crooked game Wolf and his union cronies are playing — and what you can do to put a stop to it.
8
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
Freedom Foundation urges Oregon AG, state legislative leaders to uphold the law
I
n a letter sent to Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and several legislative officials last Friday, the Freedom Foundation called on the state’s leaders to stand firm in choosing the Oregon State Constitution over union special interests — something that should be an easy task, considering they’d made that very choice just a month ago. If they don’t, the letter promises, the Freedom Foundation will do it for them. The issue at hand? Whether employees of the Legislative branch — specifically, the staff assistants who work for individual state legislators — can be unionized under Oregon law.
By BEN STRAKA, Policy Analyst
In recent months, those staffers have been the target of a unionization push by the Washington-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 89. And although IBEW filed for certification with the Oregon Employment Relations Board (ERB) back in December, it soon became clear the effort was riddled with errors. Most notably, it came up against the separation of powers doctrine of the Oregon Constitution, which separates the government into the Legisla-
Oregon Update
A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.
tive, Executive and Judicial branches and provides that “no person charged with official duties under one of these branches shall exercise any of the functions of another…” That’s a problem for IBEW’s petition, which asks the ERB — an administrative arm of the Executive branch — to order a completely different branch of government (the Legislative) to recognize and bargain with a labor union. Fortunately, Rosenblum’s Department of Justice (DOJ) quickly recognized the problem and, on Dec. 29, filed legal objections with the ERB on behalf of legislative officials. Along with challenging the constitutionality of the union’s petition, the DOJ cited numerous logistical problems with the proposed “bargaining unit” — including how it was defined and the number of employees who had supposedly signed union authorization cards — and pointed out that the state’s collective bargaining statutes also do not allow for union representation within the Legislative branch. In evident response to the DOJ’s objections, IBEW withdrew its petition and promptly re-filed an amended petition with a revised description of the bargaining unit. Problem solved, right? Far from it. As the Freedom Foundation explained in its letter to Rosenblum and Co., not only did IBEW’s amended petition do very little to resolve the DOJ’s objections regarding the proposed bargaining unit, but, more importantly, because those objections were automatically dropped when IBEW withdrew its original petition, the broader questions of constitutionality and legality have yet to be answered. State law gives the DOJ and legislative officials until Feb. 4 to re-file their legal objections in response to IBEW’s new petition. And while there doesn’t appear to be any valid reason why they wouldn’t — after all, they did the first time, and nothing has changed — the Freedom Foundation is ready and willing to step in if they don’t.
Commercials chronicle Casey’s Restaurant’s fight
C
asey’s Restaurant, a small, family-owned eatery in Klamath Falls, is very much like thousands of Oregon small businesses ordered to close their doors — perhaps permanently — as part of the state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The difference is, Casey’s isn’t accepting its death sentence without a fight. And starting this week, residents in the Klamath Falls cable market will be hearing all about it. The Freedom Foundation — a free-market public policy organization with offices in five states — will be running a self-produced commercial about the local eatery on the CenturyLink cable system. The establishment’s owners already follow common-sense health precautions and CDC guidelines for preventing the spread of COVID-19. But when the governor issued an order in November closing restaurants for the second time in less than a year, they also knew that if they did close, they would probably not be able to reopen. Their employees would no longer have livelihoods. So Casey’s made the hard choice — joining other brave entrepreneurs fighting to keep their businesses alive. They decided to keep their dining room open.
By PARKER HOLLINGSHEAD, Paralegal
As expected, Oregon’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the state agency largely responsible for enforcing Gov. Brown’s shutdown orders, served Casey’s with a “red tag” and an $8,900 fine. Casey’s is a responsible business and its owners care deeply for their employees’, and the public’s, health.
And the business, as operated, poses a threat to no one. OSHA has not made any factual findings to the contrary. Represented by the Freedom Foundation and associated attorneys, Casey’s is fighting back and appealing the OSHA citation and fine and will continue to fight. The Freedom Foundation is proud to stand with Casey’s and other businesses throughout the Pacific Northwest that are willing to challenge the unlawful government overreach that is threatening to destroy their communities.
LIVING LIBERTY
California’s public unions can’t spin these numbers
I
f you want to know the truth about what’s happening with California’s government employee unions, ignore what their leaders say and crunch some actual numbers. They paint an encouraging picture for taxpayers and the workers themselves but portend a bleak future for the unions. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California unions lost 63,000 members while the number of union-represented workers declined by 71,000 over the past year. Union officials have a ready explanation for this — COVID-19. According to their spin, the governor’s overwrought response to the pandemic cost the state a reported 1.4 million workers during the past 10 months. But there’s more going on here than just a shrinking economy. According to data obtained from the Sacramento Bee,
SEIU 1000 — one of the state’s biggest public-sector unions — lost around 3 percent of its membership between February and November 2020. Other unions, such as the California Teachers Association, also reported losses of several thousand members over the last year. Note: These aren’t private-sector unions, whose members might well have been casualties of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s COVID closure stampede. These unions represented government workers — not one of whom lost a nickel due to the quarantine. While the Freedom Foundation has reached out to both of these unions through a mixture of canvassing, physical mailers, e-mails, phone calls, and digital advertising, our own internal statistics confirm what has been reported publicly. Take, for example, SEIU 721. Thanks to an all-out
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
By SAMUEL COLEMAN, Outreach Director
blitz from the Freedom Foundation around Christmas, more than 650 of its members opted out of union tyranny. Both public data sets and our own internal data point to a simple fact — union membership in California is falling. To be fair, BLS data is questionable at best and relies heavily on self-reported information from a limited number of households. It would be unfair to pretend that simply because BLS data says union membership declined that it’s an entirely accurate statement. But coupled with other publicly available data — especially union LM-2 reports, which are released yearly (and which we expect to see many of in March of 2021), we have a pretty good idea of where union member ship is headed and why it’s heading there.
How ABout a little Collective Bargaining, MY DEAR?
Spotlight on
SEIU has a problem with sexual harassment it doesn’t want you or its membership to know about
Y
ou may remember back in 2017, an expose by Buzzfeed revealed that SEIU International had an issue with sexual harassment. Under public scrutiny, SEIU fired two of its senior staffers. Sahar Wali, a spokesperson for SEIU, said, “We know that progress does not stop with these personnel actions alone. President (Mary Kay) Henry has taken important steps toward ensuring that our workplace environment reflects our values, and that all staff is respected…” Since then, we haven’t heard much about SEIU when it comes to its struggle to keep sexual predators out of their ranks. That is, until a new website went live. Me Too SEIU details multiple allegations, victim stories and solid sources when it comes to SEIU’s continued difficulty in rooting our sexual predators in its ranks. Unfortunately, this is an issue that, to an outside observer appears to be within SEIU as an organization. Take SEIU 721 for example, which more than 650 members fled after the Freedom Foundation informed them that they had the right to leave. Believe it or not, a gentleman named Martin Manteca, who works for them as an organizing director, has been accused by 16 women of sexual harassment. He was described by coworkers as “an absolute sociopath” and “such a terror.” Another said, “(H)e’s toxic, absolutely toxic.” According to depositions, Manteca “… not only sexually harassed women in the workplace” but would “…become physi
California
By SAMUEL COLEMAN, Outreach Director
cally confrontational”. So why does a “sociopath” like Martin Manteca still have a job, representing union members and being paid upwards of $130,000 every year? Simply put, SEIU’s actions suggest it doesn’t care. The union may pay lip service to important causes, such as the recent “Me-Too” campaign to root out powerful sexual harassers, but its leaders demonstrate no real interest in participating. We can say that because Manteca isn’t the only SEIU staffer about whom public accusations have been made. Here’s a full list, according to MeTooSeiu.com n Stan Lyles – vice president, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. n Marcus Hatcher – former SEIUUHW Kaiser Permanente Division director. n Dave Regan – SEIU vice president, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. n Chokri BenSaid – Hospital Division director, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. n Pedro Malave – former staff member, SEIU 32BJ. n Tyrek D. Lee Sr. – former executive vice president, SEIU 1199 United Healthcare Workers East.
A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Golden State.
n Martin Manteca – o rganizing director, SEIU Local 721. n Scott Courtney – former vice president, SEIU. n Kandall Fells – former organizing director, Fight for $15 (SEIU). While some of these people have since been fired, or resigned under pressure, several are still there. One, in fact, was given an award by his union. Manteca, the “sociopath” who would “become physically confrontational” with people who tried to stand up to him, was given the ‘Heart of the Union’ award by SEIU 721 back in 2019. Yikes. Regardless of whether you’re a union supporter or not, we can all agree that SEIU 721 shouldn’t be protecting people like Manteca. And if you’re one of those dues-payers wondering what you can do to stop your money from protecting accused sexual predators, we encourage you to visit www.optouttoday.com to explore your ability to cease dues payment.
9
10
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
FREEDOM in ACTION
Government unions have been stealing money for years; now SCOTUS has a chance to stop it By AARON WITHE Reprinted from the DAILY WIRE
Emails: ““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 n
n
n
“Thank you for helping me successfully opt out of SEIU Local 721. Without the Freedom Foundation’s help, I would still be coerced into paying for a service that I am powerless to negotiate about. Your help has sent a clear message to the union that its members still have choices and that all “People Want To Be Free.” It also renewed my faith in our democratic system that justice is not completely broken. For your assistance, I am grateful and wish you and the Freedom Foundation continued success in fighting to give back the freedom to the common person.” – GEORGE n
n
n
“I’m incredibly grateful for your organization’s guidance throughout this process. You’ve enabled me to receive my $700 back each year and spend it on my own desires not the unions.” – ELIZABETH n
n
n
“Thank you again and again for helping me with the union harassment that was so scary and coming my way after I shared with staff that the union was taking extra money from their checks to pay for flowers and political influence. Ironically, I am 80 percent democratic, but I want to allow my money to select the candidate I choose – not them! And feel people with less money should be able to use that money (their money) for daycare, medical bills or anything they want.” – RENEE
Feb. 15, 2021
I
magine that you pay a fee for a service like Netflix, but you end up not liking it, so you cancel your membership. Then, Netflix decides it is still providing you a benefit, so you must continue to pay the membership fee. Your response would probably be to tell your bank to stop paying them. However, for public employees who want to opt out of their union, it’s not that simple. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) made a landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME that allowed every single public employee in the country to opt out of their government union and stop paying union dues. However, for tens of thousands of public employees across the country, these rights are being suppressed by the unions and their employers, the government. For years, we’ve run a campaign to inform and assist these public employees with their rights to opt out of their unions. And for years, unions, rather than provide benefits and services to their members that might convince them to stay, have been pulling every trick in the book to coerce and steal these employees’ hard-earned dollars. One of these tricks involves including deceptive fine print in their union membership cards that attempts to force public employees to continue to pay union dues for up to one year after they decide to opt-out of their union. If any other private-sector business tried to implement these types of tactics, the left and the right would band together to condemn such actions. However, government unions are the largest contributors to liberal politicians in the country, and those same bought-andpaid-for politicians allow this practice to happen in the states they control. This week, the Freedom Foundation handed SCOTUS a prime opportunity to stop government unions from blatantly ignoring the Janus decision. They now have the chance to free millions of taxpayer-funded employees from being forced to pay union dues, all in one little-known lawsuit out of the 9th Circuit. The case is Belgau v. Inslee, and a decision by the U.S Supreme Court could have a devastating impact on government unions that maintain a stranglehold on state and federal policymaking. My colleagues and I have been fighting government unions’ deceptive tactics for years, even before Janus. In fact, we submitted an amicus brief to SCOTUS in the Janus decision in anticipation of such tactics being used. Rather than allowing unions to regard every government employee as a dues-paying member until he or she successfully opts out, the brief argued that no one can legally be a member until they agree to opt in. The court concurred, and when the final ruling in Janus v. AFSCME was released, it made clear that any employee who agrees to join a union and pay dues is waiving their First Amendment right not to support the union’s political activity. And since a waiver of rights cannot simply be assumed, the prospective member must be advised of their rights and grant permission before a union can deduct dues from their pay. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito quoted our brief almost word for word, and its meaning is unambiguous. Nonetheless, unions ignored it. And when we took them to court to enforce the ruling, lower court judg
es on the west coast consistently declined to interpret Janus as broadly as its authors intended. Some judges went so far as to say Justice Alito’s opinion was wrong. Belgau should change all that. Its plaintiffs are a group of Washington state employees from whose wag es the union is deducting dues long after they demanded their freedom. If heard by the court, Belgau will be the first to argue that every government union membership agreement signed before — or since — Janus is invalid unless accompanied by written proof that the worker has knowingly waived his or her right to opt out. If SCOTUS agrees, such a ruling would quite literally mean every government union in the country must have all public employees sign new membership cards affirmatively consenting to have union dues taken from their paychecks. Former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker took similar action in Wisconsin, which led to more than 50 percent of public employees making the choice to leave their unions. If the justices side with the Freedom Foundation, it will be a cataclysmic event for government unions. With the stroke of a pen, labor leaders won’t have millions of members blindly handing over their dues every month. Overnight, the whole script will flip. Instead of organizations working to help union members get out, unions will have to work full-time just to coax them back in. Most won’t return. And when the unions have no members, they’ll also have no money. That means liberal candidates and causes those unions back almost exclusively will have to start funding themselves the way conservatives do — with their own money instead of someone else’s. Union bosses, of course, will scream bloody murder about how unfair the decision is. After all, when you’ve enjoyed a government-enforced monopoly for generations, the prospect of one day having to compete on the open market for someone’s dues money must be terrifying. Aaron Withe is national director of the Freedom Foundation, a multi-state public policy organization specializing in the abuses of government employee unions.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
11
FREEDOM in the NEWS IN PRINT
Feb. 5, 2021
Biden sweeps Trump’s rabidly anti-union appointees out of a key federal labor agency “Continuing his considerable effort to strip the government of all vestiges of Trumpism, President Biden on Tuesday swept a clutch of union-busting officials out of a little-known but all-important federal labor relations agency ... Other former members boasted associations with such right-wing groups as the Freedom Foundation, which launched attacks on public sector unions in Washington state.”
IN PRINT
Feb. 11, 2021
Washington state workers challenge post-Janus restrictions on leaving unions “Attorneys for the employees asked the Supreme Court to take up their case against Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and the Washington Federation of State Employees, arguing that state and union officials violated (the Cconstitution) by erecting barriers to leave the union and stop the automatic payroll deductions. ‘The justices have a golden opportunity here to reinforce their clearly stated intent in Janus — that public employees can freely choose to pay, or not pay, government unions,’ said Aaron Withe, national director of the conservative Freedom Foundation.”
ON IN PRINT
Feb. 3, 2021
Labor board dismisses union misconduct complaints following Biden purge “Maxford Nelsen, director of labor policy at the Freedom Foundation, said ... “The NLRB under Biden may return to past double standards, allowing employers to assist unions in organizing but prohibiting employers from assisting employee efforts to rid themselves of an unwanted union. Joe Biden has acted quickly to deliver on his promise to be the most pro-union president in history. Unfortunately, doing what is best for unions is not the same thing as doing what is best for workers.”
ON AIR
Jan. 30, 2021
Roseburg resident Alex Skarlatos will join Freedom Foundation staff “Alek Skarlatos has joined the staff of the Freedom Foundation. Skarlatos ... ran unsuccessfully for Congress against incumbent Peter DeFazio in 2020. Skarlatos said he became familiar with the Freedom Foundation during his Congressional race and was ‘eager to join the team’ when the job offer was extended.”
If they’ll lie about how your mother died, what else would they lie about? Tumwater, Wash., resident Christina Frye’s 99-year-old mother died last year in a fall. That was tough enough to take. But to make matters worse, the state of Washington deliberately misclassified her death as a COVID-19 fatality because she had at one time tested positive for the virus. Christine didn’t even realize what had happened until she saw the Freedom Foundation’s Max Nelsen being interviewed on Fox News about the fraud. Makes you think, huh?
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 Jan. 29 The California Globe publishes an op-ed written by Freedom Foundation California Outreach Director Samuel Coleman headlined, “Gov. Newsom willing to re-open schools — just as soon as the unions tell him to.” The piece concludes, “As disappointing as this all is, it should be clear at this point what Newsom’s priorities are getting re-elected, not protecting California’s children or getting them back in the classroom. The parents of underprivileged kids won’t pay for his re-election, and he needs to keep the money flowing.” Feb. 10 Oregon State Rep. Mike Nearman (R-Independence) a introduces a Freedom Foundation-backed bill in the Oregon State Legislature that would remove so-called “union-protection clauses” from collective bargaining agreements with the state. Such clauses require unions to represent every worker in a given workplace whether they are union members or not. Ironically, unions insist on these provisions because they have historically been cited
High-Water Mark: 276 opt-outs in one day The Freedom Foundation’s outreach efforts are off to a quick start in 2021. On Jan. 4, opt-outs reached a one-day high of 276 public employees leaving their government unions.
is made during a two-week window every year. And lower court judges have upheld this interpretation, But Belgau argues that, according to the wording of the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, mandatory membership and dues violate the First Amendment, meaning that workers who agree to join the union and pay dues anyway are waiving their right not to. And since a waiver of rights cannot be assumed, every worker must have been informed of his or her rights when they sign their membership contract. If SCOTUS sides with the Freedom Foundation, virtually every public-sector union in the country would suddenly find itself with no members and no money. Feb. 11
to justify “agency fees” that force workers to pay the union even after they’ve opted out of membership. Feb. 11 The Freedom Foundation appeals Belgau v. Inslee to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves several Washington state employees whose union continues to deduct dues from their paychecks long after they requested to opt out. The union maintains the workers signed a valid membership card and the dues deductions can only be stopped if the opt-out request
The Washington Times publishes a story about the Freedom Foundation’s appeal of Belgau v. Inslee on its front page. Headlined “Washington state workers challenge post-Janus restrictions on leaving unions,” the article includes a quote from Freedom Foundation National Director Aaron Withe that, “The justices have a golden opportunity here to reinforce their clearly stated intent in Janus — that public employees can freely choose to pay, or not pay, government unions,” said Aaron Withe, national director of the conservative Freedom Foundation.”
Feb. 15 The Daily Wire publishes an op-ed by Freedom Foundation National Director Aaron Withe. Headlined, “Government unions have been stealing money for years — now SCOTUS has a chance to intervene,” the piece argues, “If the justices side with the Freedom Foundation, it will be a cataclysmic event for government unions. With the stroke of a pen, labor leaders won’t have millions of members blindly handing over their dues every month.” Feb. 16 The enforcement arm of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission announces it plans to investigate a complaint filed in January by the Freedom Foundation, alleging the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) spent more than five years trying to camouflage millions of dollars’ worth of illegal political spending of its members’ dues. Feb. 18 The Freedom Foundation appeals its fourth case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals alleging an Oregon public employee’s signature was forged on her union membership card, allowing it to continue deducting dues from her paycheck.
It was true then, and it’s true now. “The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital ... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.” -- JOHN F. KENNEDY, 1961
