Union ‘worker centers’ need federal regulation .........
4
California parents file suit over school restrictions ....
5
It’s workers, not unions, we honor on Labor Day .......
6
LIVING LIBERTY
OCTOBER 2020
A Publication of the Freedom Foundation
Biden leaves no doubt who calls shots in his campaign
Electronic Service Requested
Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507
I
n a livestreamed Labor Day event hosted by the AFL-CIO, Joe Biden proclaimed that, if elected president, unions would “never have a better friend or a stronger ally in the White House.” Setting aside the blue-collar sentimentality and frequent gaffes — Biden promised to “strengthen forced labor standards,” appeared to direct an offscreen staffer to advance his teleprompter, claimed President Trump endorsed the union-backed Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act while campaigning in 2016 (even though it wasn’t introduced in Congress until 2019), etc. — the former VP backed up his promise by endorsing a suite of extreme proposals that would benefit both private-sector and government unions at the expense of American workers, businesses and taxpayers. But this should come as little surprise, given the hand union executives had in writing Biden’s labor policy platform. In July, the “Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force” released a list of progressive policy recommendations for Biden’s campaign. The presidents of each of the biggest government unions — including AFSCME, SEIU, NEA and AFT — were involved in preparing the proposals related to organized labor.
By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director
At the time, Vox noted it was “…unclear how many of these specific policy recommendations Biden’s campaign will adopt…” Now we know: All of them, and more. Government unions like AFSCME routinely boast that, wherever collective bargaining exists in government, unions can use political action to “to directly elect our bosses.” But the former vice president’s labor plan envisions the unionization of all public-sector workers, including in states that have concluded, as FDR did, that public service functions best when day-to-day operations aren’t controlled by a special interest group. Practical implications aside, allowing the federal government to dictate how every other public entity, from state governments down to local school boards, manage human resources and labor relations would be a sweeping expansion of federal power over states and raise serious constitutional questions. Further, Biden proposes to reinstate a legally questionable, and morally indefensible, Obama administration regulation allowing states to deduct union dues from Medicaid payments made to home caregivers serving functionally disabled adults. The Trump administration repealed the regulation in 2019, which brings in about $150 million per year for unions like AFSCME and SEIU, though unions have filed litigation to preserve the old rule. The heart of Biden’s policy platform for private-sector unions calls for adoption of the PRO Act, an expansive union wish list that would end any pretense of allowing See BIDEN Page 10
VOLUME 31, ISSUE 10
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 4
PAGE 3
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
LEADERSHIP MEMO By TOM McCABE Finally, it looks like the federal courts are stepping in to curb COVID shenanigans.
PAGE 5
By MAXFORD NELSEN Reprinted from WASHINGTON EXAMINER
By AARON WITHE Reprinted from the CALIFORNIA GLOBE
Department of Labor needs to start regulating unions’ ‘worker centers.’
Harris personifies the corrupt marriage between unions and the Left.
LITIGATING FREEDOM
By BOB WICKERS
By SYDNEY PHILLIPS
California parents say state’s response to COVID outbreak violates state laws that ensure students must receive a quality education.
Federal Labor Relations Authority adopts Freedom Foundation-backed regulation.
PAGES 6 & 7
What do we honor on Labor Day?
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
OREGON UPDATE
By JASON DUDASH SEIU 503 settles case, issues $1,500 refund check to worker who waited 12 years for freedom.
“If I was a decision-maker ... considering whether or not to meet the demands of the unions, I would be scared. (The Black Lives Matter) movement is spreading. We’ve been on the streets consistently, we’re building on the electoral front, and now we’re seeing this conversation at the highest levels of labor.” MAURICE MITCHELL, National Director, Working Families Party
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
Union Thugs! Teamsters
SPOTLIGHT ON CALIFORNIA By BOB WICKERS California’s Assembly Bill 5 still a job-killer.
By JASON DUDASH
By SAM COLEMAN
Freedom Foundation email forces SEIU to backpeddle on its support for defunding law enforcement.
When the going gets tough, unions quick to turn on their bretheren in law enforcement.
PAGE 10
FREEDOM IN ACTION By SAM COLEMAN Reprinted from the REDSTATE.com
Freedom Foundation’s Friends, Foes Weigh in On Our Actions.
PAGE 11
FREEDOM IN THE NEWS By BOB WICKERS Reprinted from the Daily Signal The power trips of Leftist politicians, unions must stop.
For California Gov. Gavin Newsom, it’s, “All for one ... and more for me.”
PAGE 12
ACTION TIMELINE
W
LEADERSHIP
Finally, it looks like the federal courts are stepping in to curb governors’ COVID shenanigans hen West Coast governors Jay Inslee (Washington), Kate Brown (Oregon) and Gavin Newsom (California) began issuing emergency edicts early last spring in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, I made two predictions I regret to say I was right about. First, I guessed correctly the governors would abuse their so-called “emergency powers,” seeing them as a means to reward their friends (i.e., donors) and punish their political opponents. Secondly, I reluctantly concluded the only hope of restraining their unprecedented, unconstitutional power grab was the judicial branch of government — which isn’t supposed to be guided by politics but, in these three overwhelmingly liberal states, too often is. My first prediction proved true no sooner than I had uttered it. Beginning in March and continuing to the present day, the leftist trio of Inslee, Brown and Newsom have ruthlessly used the COVID regulations to feather the nests of their political allies while sending a powerful message to anyone bold enough to defy them. Are you surprised? What else would you expect from people who’ve spent their entire lives in government and have no idea how hard it is to earn a profit in an arena of competition? Even more disturbingly, each owes his or her office to enormous campaign contributions from government employee unions, which continue to increase revenues and political clout by growing the size and scope of government. Small wonder the governors agreed the appropriate response to the COVID emergency was a heavy dose of government intervention. Not only did few government workers lose their jobs, but in many cases the robust public response actually meant adding new employees in the midst of the crisis. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of private-sector employees were told to put their lives and dreams on hold indefinitely — and in some cases forever. With October already here, schools in Washington, Oregon and California still remain closed for one reason — because the unions representing teachers want it that way. And since they donate millions to the campaign war chests of Inslee, Brown and Newsom — while students don’t have a political action committee — guess whose interests get listened to. Using the same logic, the Three Union Stooges shut down dozens of private business and residential construction projects — the sort that would help the economy while allowing ongoing government and public works projects, which represent a net liability to the taxpayers, to continue. Why? Because home builders tend to be conservative, while contractors who depend on government building projects are typically forced to make extortion payments to politicians like Inslee, Brown and Newsom. Want a perfect example of where their priorities lie? Marijuana stores in all three states were classified as “essential” and allowed to remain open while churches, which minister
3
MEMO
LIVING
to the soul in a vastly more conventional fashion, were ordered By TOM McCABE, CEO shut down. Lastly, environmental groups — among the nearest and dearest to the hearts of all statists — also received favors from their governor. The perfect example of this phenomenon is Slidewaters, the financially successful water park in Chelan, Wash., that was shut down by Jay Inslee’s accomplices in the Department of Labor and Industries despite getting permission to remain open from local health authorities. With no commercial option, swimmers crowded nearby state parks and lakes — which the COVID regulations didn’t apply to. Oh, and did I mention the owners of Slidewaters are politically conservative and staunch supporters of the Freedom Foundation? My second prediction, that only judicial intervention could put matters straight, was equally prescient. Despite more than one head-scratching ruling in response to complaints and court actions filed by the Freedom Foundation locally, there have been some encouraging developments at the federal level. Just last week, in fact, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Pennsylvania overturned most of the COVID measures undertaken in that state by Gov. Tom Wolf, declaring them unconstitutional — something you don’t have to be a federal judge to figure out. “Even in an emergency,” wrote Judge William Stickman IV, of the Pennsylvania’s Western District Court, “the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in “(T)he solution to a place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times national crisis can of trouble.” never be permitted His eloquent summation continued, “(T)he solution to to supersede the a national crisis can never commitment to be permitted to supersede individual liberty the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the that stands as foundation of the American the foundation experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the conof the American cept of a ‘new normal’ where experiment ... The the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated Constitution cannot to open-ended mitigation accept the concept of measures. “Rather,” Stickman wrote, a ‘new normal ...’ ” “the Constitution sets certain lines that cannot be crossed even in an emergency. Actions taken by the defendant crossed those lines.” Could the truth be stated any plainer?
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
Department of Labor needs to start regulating unions’ ‘worker centers’ By MAXFORD NELSEN Reprinted from the WASHINGTON EXAMINER August 21, 2020 Much has been written in recent years about the growth and legal status of nontraditional labor organizations, often referred to as “worker centers,” “alt-labor” groups, or “union front organizations.” But other than some congressional hearings, little has been done. A new complaint filed with the Department of Labor by the Freedom Foundation and Center for Union Facts against Seattle-based labor group Working Washington provides an opportunity to apply federal regulations properly to these organizations. No matter the organization, accountability is essential to succeed and thrive in the long term. In business, the market provides accountability via customer demands and competition from rivals. Make a lousy product or provide substandard service and watch your customers disappear. Though often thought of as the opposite of corporations, labor unions and similar organizations exist to provide a service — workplace representation — and collect dues to do so, just like any business. Whitmer builds security wall around governor’s mansion despite history criticizing Trump for border wall However, labor laws insulate unions from competition. Unions
are exempt from antitrust laws, changing or removing an unwanted union is exceedingly difficult, and many states permit unions to force employees to pay union fees to keep their jobs. Consequently, federal regulations, such as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, provide the primary means of promoting unions’ accountability to their members. Congress passed the LMRDA in 1959 following a lengthy investigation into abuses of power, financial mismanagement, and other malfeasance perpetrated by labor union officials. The law, administered by the Labor Department, seeks to protect employees’ interests by regulating labor organizations’ internal affairs. Among other things, the LMRDA requires that labor organizations make their governing documents and annual financial reports publicly available, create a “Bill of Rights” for members, and abide by basic democratic standards when electing officers. The ongoing federal corruption investigation into the United Auto Workers involves, in part, LMRDA violations. To evade such regulations, traditional unions back a growing network of nonprofit organizations that, although not formally labor unions, provide many similar functions. Worker centers have so far managed to avoid LMRDA com-
pliance, meaning employees involved in these organizations lack even basic protections and accountability mechanisms. The complaint against Working Washington, however, offers the agency an opportunity to address this compliance gap. The complaint says that Working Washington, a Seattle-based nonprofit organization with strong ties to the Service Employees International Union, satisfies the LMRDA’s definition of “labor organization” and should, therefore, comply with the act. To be considered a labor organization, an entity must be “engaged in an industry affecting commerce,” involve the participation of employees, and exist, at least in part, for the purpose of “dealing with employers” regarding terms or conditions of employment. While this definition encompasses traditional unions, it covers other entities as well. In Working Washington’s case, the organization may be best known for its advocacy for job-killing employment regulations in the Pacific Northwest, but as thoroughly documented in the nearly 600-pages of material submitted to the Labor Department, its stated purpose is to change employees’ “wages and working conditions.” Further, it has “members” who “contribute” monthly amounts to the organization in exchange for specific services and resources related to their employment. These member employees also participate in the
organization as leaders. And the employers with whom it has dealt, such as Amazon, Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, and Subway, are indisputably involved in “industries affecting commerce,” a broad definition excluding little other than the public sector. One of Working Washington’s recent campaigns, for example, involved pressuring Starbucks to make changes to the company’s parental leave policy for baristas. Working Washington has even coordinated formal organizing drives for traditional unions. In a free country, this is all well and good. But if organizations, such as Working Washington, provide workplace representation services to employees, then those employees deserve the same protections their counterparts in traditional unions have benefited from for 60 years. For their part, labor partisans are crossing their fingers that a Democratic victory in November will save union front groups from federal scrutiny. While certainly possible, the issue isn’t a matter of administrative policy preferences but rather of faithful application of the law to specific organizations. Either an entity satisfies the statutory definition of “labor organization” or it doesn’t. At least in Working Washington’s case, the extensive factual record should satisfy officials in any administration acting in good faith of its status as a labor organization. To reach any other conclusion for political reasons would make for both bad law and poor policy. Maxford Nelsen is the director of labor policy for the Freedom Foundation
Harris personifies the corrupt marriage of labor and the Left By AARON WITHE Reprinted from the CALIFORNIA GLOBE July 28, 2020 In early August, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza — self-described “trained Marxist” and author of a list of political demands that includes reparations, defunding police and eliminating capitalism — issued a gentle hint to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden that he’d be well-advised to name a black female, preferably California Sen. Kamala Harris, as his running mate. Scarcely two weeks later, Biden followed her orders to the letter, which ought to give you a far clearer picture of which direction — and how far — the country would move in the event of a Biden victory in November. As for Harris, there’s little question she sees eye to eye with the most radical wing of her party. And if it’s fair to divine Biden’s intentions from the company he’s been ordered to keep, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume his would-be running mate is joined at the hip with her closest and most trusted advisor. And that would be Laphonza Butler, former head of SEIU 2015 and, according to several reports, poised to become manager of Harris’ presidential campaign before it ran out of steam last December. That Harris should choose the leader of her closest confidant is totally consistent
with her history. The senator is a longtime shill for organized labor in general and public-sector unions in particular. As The Wall Street Journal recently noted, then-California AG Kamala Harris blew up an acquisition deal that would have helped struggling Catholic hospitals, because the hospital buyer didn’t agree to let SEIU organize all their employees. Her intervention on behalf of SEIU cost the hospital workers, patients and taxpayers dearly when the hospital chain went bankrupt. Simply put, government unions have wreaked havoc in California. Wherever there are public employees, there will always be unions that want to organize them in hopes of getting their hands on billions of dollars in member dues every year. These dollars, in turn, are “invested” in the campaigns of leftist politicians, who pass legislation that both protects unions and grows the size of government, adding even more dues-paying public employees. Nowhere is this cycle as endless — or profitable for those in power — as in California. Businesses have been abandoning the state at an alarming pace for decades, incensed by its sky-high taxes, wacky social
engineering, environmental excess, immigration policies, homelessness and sanctuary cities. But the stream became a flood this spring when the COVID-19 pandemic emboldened California’s political leaders to seize “emergency powers” they can exercise to create even greater chaos. And as always, labor has its hands on the spigot. In Los Angeles, for example, the union representing thousands of teachers is currently negotiating what it would take to return to the classroom. But the discussions aren’t limited to the availability of face masks, plastic shields and hand sanitizers. The union’s demands directly mirror the Black Lives Matter agenda, right down to defunding law enforcement, forcing property owners to forgive unpaid rent and mortgages and seeking redress for a litany of perceived offenses. It comes full circle. The militants burning our cities and plundering our businesses in the name of “social justice” aren’t on the fringes of the left. They and the unions that fund much of the enterprise are two halves of the same corrupt coin. And Kamala Harris, who could well be sitting a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land three months from now, is well represented on both. Aaron Withe is national director of the Freedom Foundation.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
LITIGATING FREEDOM
California parents say COVID regs deny students a quality education Sept. 14, 2020
C
alifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to limit in-person schooling in response to the COVID-19 virus is already hurting California’s students. Depending on the outcome of a newly filed lawsuit, it has the potential to hurt the state, too. The suit was filed in Shasta County Superior Court by the Freedom Foundation on behalf of three local parents who are suing on behalf of their children. The Complaint alleges the school policy of having students in class parttime denies students their constitutional right to a quality education as enshrined in the California Constitution. “All three of my children have experienced adverse effects from the current distance learning model that has been mandated by our local schools,” explained Beth Watt, one of the parents Freedom Foundation is representing.
By BOB WICKERS, California Director
“All of my children were straight-A students before distance learning began. This spring my children received a “P” for all subjects, causing them to lose all motivation and desire to excel in school.” “Governor Newsom has repeatedly told us to ‘trust the science’,” said Mariah Gondeiro, attorney for the Freedom Foundation. “It is time for Newsom to take his own advice.” Gondeiro pointed to numerous studies conducted worldwide that reveal children are not COVID-19 transmitters. In fact, when proper precautions are followed, the rate of infection among young chi dren, and from students to teachers, has been low.
Federal Labor Relations Authority adopts Freedom Foundation-backed regulation Aug. 18, 2020
M
ajor relief has finally arrived for a number of Ohio’s public employees, and it couldn’t come at a better time. Concluding a yearlong process, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) in July adopted a Freedom Foundation-supported regulation making it easier for union-represented federal employees to cancel unwanted union dues deductions from their wages. At issue was the proper interpretation of a provision in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute which requires federal agencies to deduct union dues from the paychecks of any employee who authorizes such deductions in writing. The law specifies that, once authorized, the deductions “may not be revoked for a period of one year.” In a 1981 decision, the FLRA wrote that the law “…must be interpreted to mean that authorized dues allotments may be revoked only at intervals of 1 year.” In practice, this has meant federal employees can only cancel dues deductions from their wages during short, annual window periods. However, in July 2019, the FLRA announced its intent to revisit its prior interpretation via a “general statement of policy or guidance.” During the ensuing public comment period, the Freedom Foundation filed written comments with the FLRA arguing that its prior view of the law was legally indefensible for multiple reasons and that, properly understood, the law simply meant that a union dues deduction authorization could not be rescinded for one year after its execution, but could be revoked any time thereafter. After processing comments received, the FLRA released its policy guidance on the subject in February 2020, adopting the view advocated by the Freedom Foundation and noting that the change “would assure employees the fullest freedom in the exercise of their rights.” The guidance also announced the FLRA’s intention to promulgate new regulations implementing it’s view that dues deductions can be cancelled at any point after the first year following their authorization. The proposed regulations were released the following month and underwent an additional public comment period during which the Freedom Foundation again filed written comments in support. The final rule — which was announced in July and took effect on August 10 — provides that,
By SYDNEY PHILLIPS, Litigation Counsel
What They
&
What They What she said: “Do Freedom Foundation employees get sick leave, I wonder.” What she meant: “Like
most full-time employees everywhere, of course they do. The benefit is provided MINDY CHAMBERS voluntarily by an Olympia, Wash., employer who Facebook post, knows if it wants Aug. 8, 2020 to compete for the best workers, it must offer a quality compensation package. No one opposes a voluntary benefit. What the Freedom Foundation opposes is making sick leave mandatory, which only serves to eliminate the possibility of an employee understanding that accepting a job from an employer who can’t afford sick pay is better than not having a job at all. Unions, of course, only care about people who already have a job — and pay dues. They couldn’t care less about people struggling to find one.” n n n
Looks Like someone miscalculated his opt-out window.
“…after the expiration of the one-year period during which an assignment may not be revoked under 5 U.S.C. 7115(a), an employee may initiate the revocation of a previously authorized assignment at any time that the employee chooses.” Unions objected to the change on various grounds, while several employees commented in support, pointing out that, “…it was difficult to determine their anniversary dates, as well as the window periods during which they were permitted to submit an SF1188, in order to be able to revoke their previously authorized dues assignments. In addition, they explained that, in their experiences, the unions that represented them were not helpful in determining the applicable anniversary dates or form-submission window periods.” And, as the FLRA pointed out in its response to union comments, if the unions object to the way the federal government collects dues on their behalf, “…nothing prevents unions from developing dues-payment arrangements outside the federal payroll system that would provide them a greater measure of funding predictability.” While still short of an ideal dues deduction process for federal employees, the new regulation maximizes employee rights under the existing statute, advances the spirit of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision, and sets a positive example for state government officials administering similar dues collection practices for non-federal public employees.
5
What she said: “Down with the Freedom Foundation. They’re not for workers. Unions all the way.” What she meant: “After all, what could be more pro-worker than denying him or her the right to decide Beverly Rice for themselves Monroe, Wash. whether to Facebook post, support a Aug. 8, 2020 particular political candidate or cause and, instead, confiscating a portion of their paycheck to support only the agenda the union does?” n n n What he said: “The Freedom Foundation is exactly the opposite. Nasty people.” What he meant: “Never having met a soul who works there, I nevertheless feel comfortable making this blanket statement CONRAD about them TJEMSLAND because they Eugene, Ore. hold different Facebook post views than I do. Aug. 1, 2020 When someone disagrees with the union and its objectives, we don’t debate. We destroy.”
6
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
What do we hono Pay tribute to workers, not the unions that exploit them By JEFF RHODES Reprinted from FOXNEWS.com
T
Sept. 7, 2020 he U.S. Congress first voted in 1894 to set aside a Labor Day holiday on the first Monday of every September. And according to the federal Department of Labor’s own website, the holiday is “… dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.” You’ll notice nowhere in that verbiage, however, does it suggest Americans owe any debt of gratitude to, nor would it be appropriate to celebrate, organized labor. And if that was evident 126 years ago, it’s only been reinforced in the decades since. Union leaders are fond of taking credit for the introduction of the 40-hour work week, weekends, vacation pay, child labor laws and other positive labor developments — none of which, it’s true, existed at the dawn of the last century, when the American Industrial Revolution and the labor movement were both in their infancy. But while unions certainly helped the process along, renowned Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises — a firsthand observer during the era — insisted the nation’s prosperity under capitalism was the root cause of these reforms. “In the capitalist society,” he explained, “there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested … Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wage earners’ standard of living tend to rise continually.” But even if unions had done all they claim for your great, great grandfather, those are laurels on which they’re no longer entitled to rest. Modern workers are increasingly asking their dues-collectors, “What have you done for me lately?” And the answer is, very little — unless you happen to be a leftist politician or enjoy having your paychecks skimmed to support them. Workers in the private sector, of course, have been voting with their feet for years. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, currently only 6.2 percent of non-governmental employees belong to a union, with the numbers continuing to dwindle every year. While nonaffiliated workers may earn somewhat less than their
unionized brethren, the difference doesn’t seem to justify the in dignity of watching as their hard-earned wages are funneled into the coffers of Planned Parenthood, radical environmentalists and groups that advocate defunding police. In fact, there might be no unions at all these days if not for the public sector, which boasts a shrinking but still healthy union participation rate of 33.8 percent. Why the disparity? First, government and private employers are fundamentally different in terms of where the money comes from. No matter how greedy union leaders may be when negotiating a new contract with, for example, Boeing or General Motors, they fully understand their demands must be reasonable enough to allow the company to earn the profits necessary to pay for them. Government employee unions are burdened by no such limits. When someone from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) or the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers (AFSCME) sits down across the bargaining table from a government negotiator, as often as not he or she accepted a sizeable campaign donation from the same union during the last election — and both understand that investment can easily be repaid simply by raising everyone else’s taxes. Then, too, there’s the reality that, until very recently, public employees had no choice but to pay the union either dues or so-called “agency fees” if they wanted to keep their job. In 2018, however, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Janus v. AFSCME affirming that mandatory union membership, dues and fees amounted to unconstitutional forced political speech. For generations, the country’s last remaining pocket of union strength has enjoyed the luxury of a publicly enforced monopoly over the government workforce. But now government employee unions have been told that, instead of force and intimidation, they must attract clients the old-fashioned way — by offering a quality service at a reasonable price. And they’re just not equipped to compete. If that’s the sort of institution you want to honor every year with the last holiday of the summer, you either don’t know any better or you’re in on the union scam. Either way, a principle far more deserving of tribute is the ascending right to work with or without forced representation. Or better yet, simply honor workers themselves and their contribution to the American way of life — the way the people who approved the holiday in the first place always intended you should.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
or on Labor Day? Work and workers, not unions, deserving of a holiday By HUNTER TOWER Excerpted from CENTERSQUARE.com Sept. 7, 2020 Today, Labor Day is no longer about trade unionists marching down the street asking for safe working conditions and a five-day workweek. The union leaders of today openly support the defunding of police, Medicare for All and other radical ideals that have nothing to do with the pay, benefits or working conditions of their dues-payers and everything to do with advancing a far-Left political agenda. The goal is to expand government – which means more union dues dollars for their slush funds. Thanks to the government union-backed politicians like
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, thousands of businesses and livelihoods of those employed by them are in great peril. While in no danger of missing out on a paycheck themselves, Tom Wolf and his cabinet have made disastrous decisions affecting the economic, mental and social well-being of our citizens, and they would not be in office without the union bosses’ help. Not coincidentally, government unions donated more than $10 million to his last gubernatorial run. So, this Labor Day we shouldn’t be celebrating government labor unions or the union bosses who take lavish trips and enjoy six-figure salaries. Instead, we should celebrate the workers of this great nation and their constitutional right to leave their public-sector union if they so choose without fear of losing their job.
Oregon’s example show why unions are failing everywhere By JASON DUDASH Sept. 7, 2020 Unlike the private sector, where union membership is largely voluntary, government workers at every level for generations had no choice but to join a union or support its activities through so-called “agency fees.” That changed in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME affirmed that mandatory unionization is a violation of the worker’s First Amendment rights. The decision allowed public employees to opt out of their union without fear of losing their jobs, and tens of thousands have. But the unions aren’t giving up without a fight, and through lawsuits, workplace intimidation and the simple expedient of keeping workers in the dark about their rights, the defection rate has been effectively suppressed in most states. Not so in Oregon. Like their neighbors in Washington and California, government employee unions the Beaver State have had to contend with the Freedom Foundation, a small but growing public policy organ-
ization that makes a point of informing government workers about their rights — and defending them in court when they dare to exercise them. And the results have been remarkable. SEIU 503, Oregon’s largest public employee union, has lost a full third of its dues-paying members in just the two years since the Janus ruling was issued. The state’s teachers’ unions have seen similar out-out rates. It’s gotten so bad SEIU has resorted to forging the names of workers on membership cards. But what choice do they have? For decades, the country’s last remaining pocket of union strength has enjoyed the luxury of a publicly enforced monopoly over the government workforce. But now government employee unions have been told that, instead of force and connivance, they must attract clients the old-fashioned way — by offering a quality service at a reasonable price. And competition just isn’t in their vocabulary.
7
8
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON
SEIU 503 settles case, issues refund check to worker who waited 12 years for freedom
M
oney talks — especially money that flows freely from the pockets of guilty union officials. This was the case for Deanna Salvo, the woman who received a $1,470 refund from Service Employees International Union, Local 503, without even going to court. The story goes back to 2008, when Salvo, who works for the Oregon Youth Authority, was represented by SEIU 503. By March of that year, Salvo earned a promotion. She was ecstatic and had no reason to suspect anything but maybe a raise. She didn’t know the truth — that her promotion would ignite a flame and burn a hole in her wallet for the next 12 years. Along with the change in job descrip
By PARKER HOLLINGSHEAD, Paralegal
tion, Salvo’s promotion meant that she would also change collective bargaining units and leave SEIU 503 for another union. From then on, she would be exclusively represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 75. In 2018, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that mandatory union membership and dues in the public sector were a violation of the workers’ rights, clearing the way for government employees all over the country to opt out of union participation
Oregon Update
A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.
and still keep their job. After learning about the decision, Salvo sent a letter to AFSCME 75 withdrawing authorization for membership in April 2019. But when months passed without any response, Salvo took a closer look at the money coming out of her paycheck and realized something was wrong. In fact, two monthly union deductions were coming out of her check — one for AFSCME 75 in the amount of $70, and the other a $10 fee for an acronym she didn’t recognize, “OPEU.” She asked around and learned that OPEU was an alternative acronym for SEIU 503. Both unions were still taking her money. Immediately, Salvo contacted SEIU and demanded the dues deductions stop and that she be refunded for 12 years’ worth of unauthorized payments to the union. SEIU 503 agreed to eventually stop taking her money — but on the subject of a refund, they were silent. With SEIU hesitant to pay her back and AFSCME not even acknowledging her opt-out request, Salvo knew she needed help. That’s when she called Freedom Foundation. The organization’s attorneys advised Salvo to send a second opt-out request to AFSCME 75 through certified mail and offered to send a demand letter on her behalf to SEIU 503. In the letter, attorneys asked SEIU 503 to explain why Salvo was forced to pay dues for an associate membership, to provide copies of any membership agreements they might have on file and to refund any money taken from Salvo without her consent. Rather than explain its actions, SEIU 503 sent a check to Salvo for the full amount. As of this month, AFSCME 75 has also stopped deducting dues from Salvo’s paycheck. At the Freedom Foundation, we help people exercise their right to opt-out of union membership ever day. In the process, we hear countless stories of unions rigging the game and playing by their own set of rules, but they seldom own up to their misconduct. But a check like this? It may as well be a confession.
Freedom Foundation email forces SEIU to backpeddle
E
mails obtained by the Freedom Foundation from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) indicate the state’s count of COVID-19 deaths is overstated in more ways than one. Last month SEIU 503 was once again forced to attempt to justify its radical stances to the hardworking Oregonians the union represents. Over the past few weeks, the Freedom Foundation has been educating state employees represented by SEIU 503 about their union’s role in defunding the police as part of an email campaign. Every year, SEIU sends hundreds of thousands of dues dollars to Our Oregon, a group currently under investigation by the Department of Justice for what would be the largest violation of election law in Oregon’s history. Our Oregon is well known for being behind most of the progressive ideas pushed in the Beaver State, primarily through ballot initiatives. However, its latest email instructed supporters directly to “defund local police,” specifically advocating for Portland Police Bureau’s budget to be cut by $50 million. Polls show the notion of defunding the police is wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans, apparently including those represented by SEIU 503.
By JASON DUDASH, Oregon Director
To be more precise, nearly 300 public employees represented by SEIU have resigned from their union since we informed them their dues dollars were being used to make their communities less safe. Such a dramatic loss rightfully alarmed union leaders, who only see dollar signs leaving their pockets, and prompted them to send an email out to all SEIU members in an attempt to justify their stance. Their email however may have done them more harm than good. Despite their naïve attempts to defame our organization and intent, overall their justification was that it was only “one email.” They did not deny giving over $3 million worth of dues money to an outside radical group. They did not deny that outside group is now fighting to defund the police. They only said, probably with deep regret, that these calls for defunding police were only from a single email. A pretty lame excuse, you’ll no doubt agree. This is just another example from an ever-growing list of government unions being out of touch with those they supposedly represent.
SEIU 503
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION
Califiornia’s Asembly Bill 5 still a job-killer
A
t the end of August, the California State Legislature ended its scheduled nine-month session by sending a slew of bad bills to the governor’s desk for signature. Among the worst of the worst was AB-5. Known informally as the “California Job Killer,” the measure was highly sought after by unions for one simple reason: It’s exceptionally difficult to unionize independent contractors and removing that classification from the state employment code would make their lives much easier. AB-5 applies an ABC test to decide whether a private company can hire an independent contractor. In this test, the company must show: n the hiring entity does not control or direct the worker in performing the work in fact or under the terms of a contract;
By BOB WICKERS, California Director
n the work performed is outside the “usual course” of the hiring entity’s business; and; n the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. While the bill was intended as a way to give unions direct access to Uber and Lyft drivers, it generated collateral damage, as well. Among the biggest losers were freelance writers working for newspapers or online publications who suddenly lost their jobs or a significant portion of their yearly wages. This led to headlines like, “California Will Soon Learn Assembly Bill 5
Was a Historic Mistake”. So, was AB-5 fixed by the end of the legislative session? Only partially. If you’re a newspaper, you got a pretty sweet deal. Not only are you now exempted from AB-5 (pending a signature from Gov. Newsom) for an entire year, but many job classifications for freelance writers were also exempted in a separate bill (also pending Newsom’s approval). But if you’re a regular person trying to find work during a time when California is experiencing a historic 15 percent unemployment rate, the legislative “fix” didn’t do anything for you. Maybe next session. In the meantime, we can all celebrate that the newspapers reporting favorably on AB-5 are no longer being hurt by it. Nor are the political consultants who pushed the bill in the first place.
When the going gets tough, unions quick to throw their police brethren under the bus
D
ue to events in the past few months, American liberals had a moment of clarity when they realized that police unions act a whole lot like unions in general. In this shocking revelation, there was almost an anti-labor movement developing among those who typically endorsed all labor unions regardless of their individual worth or whether they provide a worthwhile product. This lead to hilarious headlines such as “Police unions become target of labor activists who see them as blocking reform,” which is objectively funny, given that all unions, especially teachers unions, are far more guilty of blocking needed reform. Another headline read, “Why do police unions talk and act like the Mafia? How can we stop them?” which seemingly ignored the fact that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is most famous for being infiltrated by the mafia in New York.
Union Thugs! Teamsters
By SAMUEL COLEMAN, Outreach Director
Spotlight on
Many of our checks and balances on private sector unions exist today because the Teamsters under Jimmy Hoffa starting in the 1950s were so thoroughly corrupt. Even now, many unions are coming together in their call to defund the police and wish to distance themselves from the perceived wrongs of police officers unions. Believe it or not, the problems aren’t just confined to one union. Whether it’s a police union, a teachers union or any other public employee union that blocks reform and tries to maintain the status quo, the issue is the way these unions use their political clout to influence decisions that have nothing to do with the well-being of their members. If all these unions did was try to get a better wage for their employees, very few would actively call for their removal. In California, there have been several attempts to limit the outsized influence public employee unions have in political circles. In 1998, for example, Proposition 226 — dubbed the “paycheck protection” initiative — attempted to cease the practice of unions using dues dollars for political spending. While the committee to enact the proposition raised $6.4 million, a coalition of labor groups raised more than $24.8 million, no doubt from their own members pockets, to make sure it never became law. Again in 2005, Proposition 75 would have required permission to withhold union dues for political purposes. While those in favor raised nearly $5.8 million for the initiative, another coalition of labor groups raised $54.1 million to defeat it, which they did. Outspending their opponents nearly 10 to 1, it was destined to fail. The California Teachers Association and SEIU raised more than $22.1 million alone to defeat it, with the California Democratic Party kicking in $3.2 million of its own to defend its largest funder. Finally in 2012, Proposition 32 aimed
California A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Golden State.
to accomplish the same objective as its predecessors. This time, a coalition of labor unions and their supporters raised more than $73 million to defeat it. The California Teachers Association donated more than $21 million, while SEIU donated $13.4 million. None of these propositions would have made it illegal for unions to spend money on politics, they would just have to ask their members for permission first. But when you have access to millions of dollars to influence California politics, why would you willingly give that up? Ultimately, everything negative that has been said about police officers’ unions could be said about any public employee union in California. Massive unions like SEIU and the California Teachers Association love spending their members’ money to tell others how to behave, but perhaps they should look in the mirror before pretending that they own the ideological high ground.
9
10
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
FREEDOM in ACTION
For California Gov. Gavin Newsom, it’s, ‘All for one ... and more for me’ By SAM COLEMAN Reprinted from REDSTATE.com Sept. 9, 2020
Emails: “We appreciate all you’re doing to save the republic from Socialist slavery.” – EARL H., Washington n
n
n
“Thank you. Please keep fighting for our rights.” DAVID L., Oregon n
n
n
“Keep up the fight and the good work. The public is with you.” – RICHARD S., California n
n
n
“I’m from Washington and haven’t known how to fight for my rights. As a private school teacher, I don’t have a lot of extra money, but I’ll be back to donate more. Thank you for fighting for our freedom.” – TRISHA P. , Washington n
n
n
“Keep up the great work. Thanks for all you do ... and all you endure.” – TRACEY H. Washington n
n
n
I am so fed up with this nonsense and this dictator taking over this craphole of a state I live and work in ( or at least try to work in!!!). I am a believer, and this is complete and utter nonsense about we as Christians who want to worship and exercise our rights as citizens of the USA. Thank you for all you do.” – CAROL O. California n
n
n
I’m donating to help the Oregon face mask lawsuit.” – FRANK S. New Jersey
C
alifornia has been through a lot lately. Between wildfires forcing tens of thousands of residents from their homes, a recent spike in COVID-19 cases, rolling blackouts affecting hundreds of thousands, and millions of Californians searching for work, our state needs a break. While residents of the Golden State are no strangers to wildfires and struggling to get good service from a seemingly inept PG&E, many still look to our political leadership to provide guidance and reassurance in difficult times. “We’re all in this together” has been the unofficial catchphrase of Gov. Gavin Newsom during the months-long COVID-19 lockdowns. When state employees effectively took a 10 percent salary reduction, the Governor promised parity within his administration. If state workers had to lose money, Newsom promised he would willingly accept a commensurate pay cut of his own. Except he didn’t. Thanks to some investigative journalism at The Sacramento Bee, we now know that Newsom did not take a pay cut and instead collected his entire salary — more than $17,000 a month — for nearly three months after promising to do so. It was only after the Bee broke the story that Newsom sent a letter to the Controller’s Office asking for his pay to be cut — retroactive to July 1. He also used the opportunity to urge other elected state officers to make the same sacrifice. But the governor isn’t the only one looking to exempt himself from the pain they’re asking everyone else to endure. Every single union leader representing government employees dealing with pay cuts and furlough days of their own has refused to reduce the amount of union dues taken from union member paychecks. The dues calculations for many of these unions work as follows: Public employee union members pay a percentage of their annual salary to the union, usually between
BIDEN Continued from page 1
workers to make up their own minds about unions. Among other things, the law would require employers to allow their internal communications systems to be used for union organizing and force them to turn over employees’ personal information — including home addresses, cell phone numbers and personal emails — to union organizers. At the same time, the bill would restrict employers’ ability to speak with employees about the implications of unionization. Perhaps most concerning, the PRO Act would ban rightto-work laws, which have so far been adopted by 28 states and which protect the rights of workers to choose for themselves whether to surrender part of their paychecks to unions. Thankfully, the U.S. Su-
1.2-1.7 percent. Most employees hit the cap, usually around $800, before the end of the fiscal year. In March, the Freedom Foundation suggested a common-sense solution for public employees facing potential loss of income — adopt a three-month moratorium on union dues collections from their paychecks, allowing nearly $250 million to remain in the pockets of those who earned it and permitting them to spend the money instead on bills, medicine, food, fuel, etc. We reached out to the governor about the proposal, but it was never even acknowledged. This is hardly surprising, given that labor unions donated more than $4 million to his campaign during the previous election cycle. It’s unfortunate that Gov. Newsom would reject out of hand an effective way to provide much-needed assistance to struggling families across the state, while infusing the California economy with $250 million, all without raising a single dollar in taxes. But this isn’t the first time he’s failed to show his solidarity with the working people of California. Recently, we learned the governor’s $3.7 million mansion was gifted to him in violation of the gift limit set at $500 annually. The LLC that gifted him his mansion was registered in the name of Newsom’s cousin and longtime business partner, who also happened to be the co-president of PlumpJack Wines You may remember that while 80 percent of wineries across California were forced to close due to COVID-19 regulations, this winery was able to keep their doors open. By a happy coincidence, Gov. Newsom and his wife own a combined $600,000 worth of shares in PlumpJack. But don’t pay attention to any of Gavin Newsom’s shady dealings and personal enrichment. Just remember — we’re all in this together. Sam Coleman is the California outreach director for the Freedom Foundation.
preme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME recognized that unionized public employees have a constitutionally protected right to refrain from union payments without losing their job. But under the PRO Act, millions of private-sector American workers would be stripped of similar protections. In several respects, Biden promises to go even further than the brave new world envisioned by the PRO Act. Whereas the PRO Act would sharply increase civil and monetary penalties for employers found to violate employees’ union rights, Biden proposes “(holding) company executives…criminally liable” for such violations. Recall that, under the Obama-Biden administration, the National Labor Relations Board’s expansive view of labor rights encompassed allowing employees to use abusive language and racial slurs when engaged in union activity.
Additionally, as president Biden would go further than the PRO Act in seeking to deprive employees of the ability to vote on unionization in a fair, secret-ballot election, instead requiring union recognition if organizers can pressure most employees in a workplace to sign union authorization cards. Biden justifies these sweeping changes — and many, many others — by pointing out that most Americans generally approve of unions, according to Gallup. But the same polling shows that as many as 80 percent of Americans oppose mandatory unionization. As it turns out, Americans don’t much like being told what to do and are inclined to expect a government not overly beholden to special interests. But if even a fraction of the union policies touted by Biden’s campaign become law, they should expect a lot more of both.
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION
11
FREEDOM in the NEWS IN PRINT
Sept. 14, 2020
ON IN PRINT
Aug. 20, 2020
County commissioner candidates agree community needs help getting through COVID-19, differ on criminal justice
Lawsuit seeks an end to restrictions on leaving union membership
“Cummings also accused Kerns of undermining unions and of having ties to the Freedom Foundation., a organization founded in Washington that advocates against union causes. Kerns said he has never tried to interfere with county employees union membership and said the Freedom Foundation has only made a presentation to county commissioners, and he did not have contact with the organization outside of that.”
This isn’t just an issue in Nevada. In December, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard a similar case involving government workers in Washington seeking to drop their union membership. In that case, filed by the Freedom Foundation., workers had only 10 days each year to opt out of the union. The Supreme Court was correct to conclude that paying union dues is a form of political speech.
ON LINE
Aug. 25, 2020
ON LINE
Aug, 12, 2020
Slidewaters commercial will air on Eastern Washington cable channels
California’s public-sector unions rake in $921 million in annual revenue
“The commercial focuses on Slidewaters water park and features coowner Robert Bordner. Slidewaters is represented by the Freedom Foundation in a lawsuit against the State of Washington. The Department of Labor and Industries closed the water park on July 20 and imposed a $9,000 fine after a federal judge denied a request for a temporary restraining order.”
“To get another glimpse of just how Sisyphean the task of identifying and tracking all of California’s public-sector unions is, have a look at this website, put up by the Freedom Foundation. Scroll down this page and consider the following: Were all of these various Locals included in this analysis? Here’s your answer: No. They weren’t. There’s simply too many of them.”
COVID power trips for politicians, unions must stop By BOB WICKERS Reprinted from THE DAILY SIGNAL Sept. 3, 2020
no avail in the Los Angeles area. he COVID-19 pandemic has brought out The Unified Teachers of Los Angeles has repolitical power trips like America has never leased a list of demands the union says must be seen before. met before the teachers will go back to work, and Governors and mayors have seized “emergency many of the demands have nothing to do with powers” that effectively shut down our economic health and safety. engine and social culture. The teachers’ union is not simply demanding Never before had Americans seen the day gallons of hand sanitizer and masks for everyone when they would be told they couldn’t open for on campus. business, attend worship services, hold wedLabor leaders are not merely requesting plexidings or funerals, or send their children back to glass barricades around their workspaces to school. protect them from students who may be carrying Americans never anticipated COVID-19. they’d be forced to wear facial Those suggestions could be “The leaders coverings if they so much as left discussed. their homes. No, the teachers union is refusof the Unified The continued crisis has ing to go back to the classrooms Teachers of Los unless politicians abolish charter sufficiently emboldened tyrants-in-waiting to the point that private schools, eliminate unAngeles are not and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti paid rent evictions, remove school cut off the water and power to a resource officers, and defund law thinking about home that hosted a large gathenforcement. the children ... ering—and threatened to do the It doesn’t matter to the union’s same to businesses that defy his leaders that when kids can’t go to They’re holding “social distancing” edict. school, parents either can’t go to our children How does that help anyone? work or must make other childMany of these edicts are care arrangements—often at inhostage, and obvious political power grabs creased cost to already struggling in order to keep people uncomfamilies. Californians fortable and inconvenienced, in Students fall behind in their lesshould demand sons and extracurricular activities, hopes of affecting the November elections, but they will have deaffecting grade point averages and that it stop.” structive consequences we haskill development needed for colven’t yet fully realized and can’t lege or post-high school careers. even anticipate. Depression and anxiety rates among K-12 stuOne political force to be reckoned with in dents is increasing, as is stress on families. California is even willing to sacrifice the futures The teachers’ union wants to draw out the of younger generations; namely, the teachers pain and inconvenience on millions for politunions. ical gain, and too many area political leaders Health experts across the country have urged are willing to comply because they, too, see a school districts to reopen in-person education for political advantage to staying shut down and the well-being of America’s schoolchildren, but to shut in.
T
Why are we paying property taxes if the schools those taxes fund remain locked and empty, and if parents have to take on the primary role of educating their children? By comparison, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced that his state’s public schools can reopen for in-person education. He needs the schools to reopen because it’s one of the few things that may keep his tax base from collapsing entirely. America is six months into the pandemic, and many companies are realizing their employees can work remotely. Why pay exorbitant rent for New York City office space when people have effectively learned to work from home? Why should people pay sky-high property taxes when they can do their jobs in a more affordable community? Cuomo has begun begging his wealthy constituents to return to New York, even offering to take them out for a drink or cook them dinner. While Cuomo’s decision to reopen schools is also largely political, he’s at least letting New York families return to some semblance of normalcy. The Los Angeles teachers’ union wants to delay “normal” to further its far-left political agenda. My organization, the Freedom Foundation, works tirelessly to free teachers and other government employees from union bondage. In the two short years since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Janus v AFSCME — giving government employees the constitutional right to opt out of union membership—we have helped more than 8,500 teachers leave their unions. Teachers unions don’t care about teachers. They only care about collecting dues from teachers’ paychecks. That’s why they fight teachers who want to leave the union. The leaders of the Unified Teachers of Los Angeles are not thinking about the children. They’re holding our children hostage, and Californians should demand that it stop.
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 Aug. 18
Concluding a yearlong process, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) in July adopts a Freedom Foundation-supported regulation making it easier for union-represented federal employees to cancel unwanted union dues deductions from their wages. At issue was the proper interpretation of a provision in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute which requires federal agencies to deduct union dues from the paychecks of any employee who authorizes such deductions in writing. The law specifies that, once authorized, the deductions “may not be revoked for a period of one year.” Aug. 25 A new Freedom Foundation commercial rebuking Gov. Jay Inslee’s COVID-19 shutdown order debuts on cable TV in Eastern
BY THE NUMBERS During August, the Freedom Foundation sent mailers to more than 90,000 teachers, informing them of the 2018 Supreme Court decision, Janus v. AFSCME, recognizing their First Amendment right not to financially support a union in order to keep their job. In just one week, nearly 200 Ohio teachers chose to exercise their First Amendment right to opt out of their union, keeping more of their hard-earned dollars. Washington. The commercial exposes the damage Gov. Jay Inslee’s edict is doing to businesses and livelihoods by highlighting its effects on Slidewaters, a popular Lake Chelan water park. Slidewaters and its owners, cousins Robert and Burke Bordner, are being represented in a suit against the state by the Freedom Foundation.
Freedom Foundation National Director Aaron Withe appears on After Hours with Alex Salvi, a online national newscast on the OneAmerica network, to discuss the Freedom Foundation’s lawsuit hoping to reopen California schools.
Sept. 4
Sept. 14
The Freedom Foundation files a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards alleging the Washington Federation of State Employees/American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 28 (WFSE) has violated various provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Among the allegations made in the complaint are that the union has failed to properly file reports about its governance and finances as required by the law. The alleged violations span a period of multiple years.
A lawsuit is filed in Shasta County (Calif.) Superior Court by the Freedom Foundation on behalf of three local parents alleging the school policy of having students in class part-time denies students their constitutional right to a quality “Gov. Gavin Newsom has repeatedly told us to ‘trust the science.’” said Mariah Gondeiro, attorney for the Freedom Foundation. “It’s time for Newsom to take his own advice. Thousands of educators, parents and even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) say students need to be in school.”
LIVESTREAM 2020
featuring
Sarah Huckabee Sanders
October 9 | 7:00 PM To purchase your tickets visit: FreedomFoundation.com/FreedomLivestream Registration deadline: October 6