Biden fires Freedom Foundation’s Max Nelsen

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

Every 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 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

California continues its assault on free speech

By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL, Litigation Counsel

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’

Whenever 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.

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:

By BEN STRAKA, Policy Analyst

“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.” employees is based on merit:

“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.

THE FACE OF FREEDOM Biden’s first expression of ‘unity’ is to fire Freedom Foundation’s Nelsen from labor dispute panel

Freedom 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 describedTrump’s FSIP as “a ‘Who’s Who’ of union-busters and anti-government ideologues.”

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.

By ASHLEY VARNER, VP for Communications

For his first official act as ex-president, Trump gives union the back of his hand

There 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 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.

By JEFF RHODES, VP for News & Information

What They

What They &

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 depended on it. Like all liberals, I know I can’t debate ideas like those 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.”

GARRY BREWSTER

Vancouver, Wash. Facebook post Jan. 9, 2020

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 BRAD KEELER Freedom Spokane, Wash. Foundation, Facebook post which is Jan. 15 , 2021 funded 100 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 that aren’t misdeeds at all. Meanwhile, unions consistently get caught red-handed concealing millions 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.”

PHIL VENDITTI University Place, Wash. Instructor, Clover Park Technical College Facebook post Dec. 9, 2020