Spring/Summer 2021
Volume 7, No. 1
What Else Did COVID Kill? How much of what the virus made us endure is here to stay, and how many of our freedoms did we surrender for good? Page 34.
A Publication of the Freedom Foundation
W
hen I took over as CEO of the Freedom Foundation in 2014, it was because I wholeheardly embraced the organization's commitment to the ideals of free enterprise and limited, accountable government. And because I quickly realized the organization was the perfect weapon with which to do battle with the country's most malignant opponent of those goals — government employee unions.
It also quickly became apparent the need was too great for us to remain a Washington-centric operation. Within a year, we opened a branch office in Oregon — the first expansion in the Freedom Foundation's 24year history to that point. Not long after, we had the audacity to open another office, this one in the massive — and massively corrupt — state of California. In both locations, we hired very good people and gave them a very good message to disseminate. That, combined with the reality that our union adversaries are very bad people, produced the same sort of success we were enjoying in Washington. In all three states, we helped tens of thousands of workers exercise the right to opt out of union bondage the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2018 with its ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. Consequently, the unions lost millions of dollars in dues — to say nothing of what they were forced to spend defending themselves from us. In recent years, we've added offices in Pennsylvania and Ohio, where things are quickly following the same script. But rather than pick one or two individual states for our next expansion, we decided it was time the Freedom Foundation became a truly national organization, with a presence in all 50 states. The particulars of how that's going to look are still being worked out, but it's definitely happening. The Freedom Foundation long ago established itself as the country's go-to source when it comes to union misdeeds in general and right-to-work legislation in particular. Our new policies won't change any of that. They just ensure we'll be a lot easier to find for anyone who needs our help. Wherever they may be.
TOM McCABE, president
Volume 6, No. 1
6. Truth be Damned
Contents
Anyone who thinks this country needs a 'reality czar,' or that Joe Biden is the one to pick him, needs to think again.
10. Labor Flexes
Its Muscles
Under the current regime, unions aren't just getting special breaks; they're literally calling the shots.
14. The New Normal As the COVID pandemic winds down, it's fair to ask how many of the rights we surrendered aren't coming back.
18. Paying Off For the price of a few million in campaign contributions, labor unions are scoring deals worth billions from the Biden mob.
22. Justice in
the Balance
From packing the court to actively seeking workarounds for recent decisions, SCOTUS is the target of a major assault from the Left.
26. Is America's
Political Divide Such a Bad Thing?
This country has never been unified, and the side out of power is never happy about it. Is that a bad thing?
30. Biden Thinks He
Can Take Unions Back to the Future
For years, government employee unions have grown as private-sector unions have shrunk. Can the new administration reverse the trend?
34. Imposing the
Non-Nuclear Option
How can liberals demand a safe, clean, affordable energy source and still reject nuclear power out of hand? Could be their real objective is to bring down capitalism altogther.
38. Action Timeline Recent significant accomplishments.
Freedom Matters is a publication of the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit think and action tank based in Olympia, Wash., dedicated to promoting free markets and limited, accountable government. Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any ballot measures or the election of any elected official or candidate. Publisher: Tom McCabe; Editor: Jeff Rhodes. Phone: (360) 956-3482.
YourLegacy For nearly 15 years, I directed the Freedom Foundation Legacy program. It was my privilege to be part of this great organization’s unique effort to provide free information and resources for members to learn how and why to create your own will or estate plan. We held our free Planning for Life workshops around Washington state to rave reviews. Due to the pandemic, the Freedom Foundation suspended the legacy workshops. But over the years, many of you who attended these events told us you have successfully completed your own will or trust and now have that precious peace of mind knowing your family is protected. Congratulations. And dozens of you have joined our Legacy Society, for which we are eternally grateful. If you are one of the millions of Americans who don’t have a simple signed and witnessed will, I have this advice for you: The government already has a plan for you, and your heirs won’t like it. We live in trying times that make protecting our families and our hard-earned money even more important. Call Mark Dalan at the Freedom Foundation headquarters office (360) 956-3482. He may be able to suggest an estate planning expert in your area. If you already have an advisor, I urge you to contact him or her today and get this critical life task behind you. Thank you to each of you who are members of our Legacy Society. Because of your gifts, the next generation will hear the message of freedom. We treasure your partnership in the work of the Freedom Foundation. God bless you, each one. By IRENE ENDICOTT
PAGE 6
n FREEDOM MATTERS
TRUTH be DAMNED Anyone who believes this country needs a 'Reality Czar,' or that Joe Biden is qualified to pick him or her, simply doesn't get it.
A
rriving at the truth is a process of discovery. It’s a pursuit. Contemplating information and asking questions are necessary to actualizing truth. Careful analysis of empirical data is the means by which truth is established and propagated. In certain cases, embracing it requires faith — or believing something that cannot be proven. But in a world where control and subjugation are an obsession of the ruling class — political elites, academia, foreign-owned media giants, big tech and woke corporations — the truth has become just that much more difficult to ascertain. But don’t despair. Even as we speak, serious discussions are under way within Joe Biden's
By LAUREN BOWEN Ohio Outreach Director
inner circle to provide you with a factversus-fiction filter. To wit, New York Times technology reporter Kevin Roose — apparently blissfully unaware he draws a regular paycheck from the most widely disseminated barrier to the truth the world has ever produced — recently authored a piece headlined, “How the Biden administration can help solve our reality crisis.” Convinced this self-described “crisis” entails conservative opinions occasionally slipping through the cracks into general consumption, Roose proposes a so-called “reality czar” be appointed — by uber-liberals, rest assured — to not only divine what truth is, but to then mete out justice to those who fall short in their duty to live up to the Left's conception of it. “Several experts I spoke with,” Roose writes, “recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a ‘reality czar.’”
FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 7
It’s a little late for “1984,” but Orwell’s vision of a Ministry of Truth is starting to look prescient. “It sounds a little dystopian, I'll grant,” Roose concedes. Only a little? Harvard's Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, joins the chorus calling for a “truth commission,” and demands federal authorities be handed Facebook/Twitter/YouTube algorithms: “We must open the hood on social media,” he says, “so that civil rights lawyers and real watchdog organizations can investigate human rights abuses enabled or amplified by technology.” Not to be outdone, Stanford Internet Observatory disinformation researcher Renée DiResta advocates a centralized counterconspiracy task force because, if federal agencies are doing that work separately, “(Y)ou run the risk of missing connections, both in terms of the content and in terms of the tactics that are used to execute the campaigns.” Various politicians and pundits have proposed with a straight face rewriting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act while using antitrust threats to tame Big Tech. Meanwhile, counter-extremism specialist Micah Clark plumps for a “social stimulus,” and hate-group deprogrammer Christian Picciolini opts for the kitchen-sink approach. “We have to destroy the institutional, systemic racism that creates this environment,” he writes. “We have to provide jobs. We have to have access to mental healthcare and education.” So there it is. You may be absolv-ed from having to apply any level of reason or discernment to come to terms with the truth — ever again. And it’s as though critical thinking and raising questions about leftist propaganda were easy, common or permissible, given the current conspiratorial cadre of deceitful politicians, agenda-driven academics, technocrats and biascompromised journalists shilling PAGE 8
n FREEDOM MATTERS
for statist government. But one’s personal quest to offer an alternative viewpoint is about to be completely obstructed. One may be able to research and contemplate, but sharing information contradicting that which is manufactured by the Left will be impossible. Socialist sympathizers are hoping to deprive you of the ability to embrace and emulate the truth. The most passionate and convicted among us, who are compelled to speak up out of a sense of patriotism, religious attachment or undeniable acquaintance with scientific fact, will have neither an avenue nor a platform. Apparently not comprehending the irony of his words, Roose suggests, “(T)his task force could meet regularly with tech platforms and push for structural changes that could help tackle extremism and misinformation problems.” Roose also believes the crossagency task force could “become the tip of the spear for the federal government’s response to the reality crisis.” And just like that, t’s all figured out. Cancel culture is finally being formalized by the U.S. government. Its evangelists now have institutionalized authority to silence dissidents. You don’t have to look very far in the past, or know history very well, to understand the true danger inherent in this kind of thinking. When political elites have extensively involved themselves in regulating the “truth,” millions upon millions of lives were destroyed. In the authoritative “Black Book of Communism,” European scholars recall the history of political repression among Communist states. The human rights atrocities committed by Marxist regimes and archived in this research include genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, killing populations in labor camps and state-sponsored famines. This analysis concludes that as many as 25 million in the former
Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea and 1 million in Ethiopia have fallen victim to the natural byproduct of Communist ideology. Authoritarian power structures thrive in the absence of objective truth. Paranoid dictators become obsessed with controlling the dissemination of information to the masses. To maintain their absolute control, access to the truth has to be forbidden. Otherwise, righteous people would be empowered to challenge such indigent political oppression. But tyranny makes the consolidation of power possible. And if dictators are to maintain their status, state-manufactured propaganda must, by definition, supplant truth. Propaganda complements and consolidates their agenda. Destructive measures aimed at concentrating power among an elite few are then successful. The transformation to this type of evil is well under way here in America. The immoralities of authoritarian government can happen again. And they can happen to the American people. The actions of the Left speak to this. Make no mistake about the priorities of the conceptualizers of a “reality czar.” Protection of important American institutions from domestic terrorists acting on misinformation and conspiracy theories is not the objective of this — not new but formalized — concept of truth regulation. Movements to defund the police, the so-called “Green New Deal,” nonexistent borders, anarchy, deplatforming of political dissidents and blacklisting conservatives from job opportunities are all recent examples of their semieffective attempts to advance socialism. And if you think these are wellintentioned, you haven’t hon-
Truth Contemplating
estly examined those intentions. Like their socialist predecessors and mentors, the narcissistic and selfish tendencies of radicals are cloaked behind incessant attention to constructed societal ills. Marginalizing people along racial, gender and economic lines — to have an injustice to fight — creates “legitimacy” for their mantra and a distraction from the heart of their movement — domination and control. Prestige, moral superiority and ivory tower exclusivity is their sole preoccupation. In John 6:32, the Bible promises, “And the truth shall set you free.” But free people need to be armed with the truth. Individual liberty cannot exist if attainment of the truth via free thought and curiosity are inhibited. Yet in the land of the free and home of the brave, we’re seriously considering the installation of a “reality czar.” Truth will be contrived and liberties diminished. The would-be ruling class does not want America to exist
or continue in the direction envisioned by the founding fathers. Individual freedom — as defined by equal opportunity to achieve life, liberty and pursue happiness — is not their hope for Americans. A government ruled by the people challenges their wealth, political elitism, influence and control. In fact, America’s founders brilliantly conceived of man’s natural sinful predisposition to pursue absolute power. The U.S. Constitution recognizes that rights come from nature, not man. And the Bill of Rights serves as individual protection from unchecked government authority. Freedom of speech is among those fundamental rights. It’s almost as though the founders of liberty envisioned the creation of a reality czar tasked with squelching beliefs misaligned with the prevailing consensus of truth. Leftist power brokers understand, more than the complacent majority, the power of truth. Truth is the antidote to the
oppression necessary to maintain the power for which they lust. Hence the desperation and eagerness to create a regulatory body charged with defining the “truth” and disseminating propaganda. The truth is more than just inconvenient for the leftist agenda. It is untenable. When people know the truth and are willing to act on it, the value of human life will no longer be minimized. Nor can abuses of human rights ensue. Injustice cannot prevail, prosperity is achieved, private property rights are protected and the will of the people cannot be repressed. There is an old adage, “Evil can only prevail when good men do nothing.” But when in the dark, distanced from the truth, nothing might be the only option even for good men. And dwelling in the dark, living in deceit, is exactly where oppressors of freedom and liberty hope we remain. Any sort of “reality czar” will see to it. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 9
PAGE 10 10 FREEDOM MATTERS nn PAGE FREEDOM MATTERS
LABOR FLEXES its
MUSCLES
Joe Biden promised to By MAXFORD NELSEN make his the most Labor Policy Director 'labor-friendly' presidency in history. But after the kneecapping of NLRB general counsel Peter Robb, it's clear his union cronies got far more than just a seat at the table. Under Biden, they're literally calling the shots.
A
rguably the first major controversy of President Joe Biden’s administration was the unceremonious Inauguration Day firing of Peter Robb, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) appointed by President Trump, 10 months before the expiration of his term. Internal NLRB emails recently obtained by the Freedom Foundation under the Freedom of Information Act provide additional insights into the unprecedented termination of the Board’s top enforcement official prior to the expiration of his term of office.
FREEDOM MATTERS 11 PAGE 11 n PAGEn FREEDOM MATTERS
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) specifies that the NLRB general counsel, “...shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of four years.” The statute does not envision or discuss the removal of the general counsel, and no previous president has replaced the NLRB general counsel prior to the expiration of their term. However, at 12:23 p.m. on inauguration day, literally as President Biden was delivering remarks to the nation about his intent to foster renewed unity, his staff emailed Robb a demand that he resign or face termination by 5 p.m. Robb “respectfully decline(d)" and was terminated. The following day, Robb’s deputy general counsel, Alice Stocks, received a similar ultimatum and was terminated following her refusal to resign. Days later, Biden named Peter Ohr, the regional director of the NLRB’s Region 13 office in Chicago, as acting general counsel. Since his appointment, Ohr has moved aggressively to rescind guidance memoranda and other policy positions adopted by his predecessor, much of which attempted to limit union coercion of employees. Challenges to the legality of Robb’s firing and Ohr’s subsequent reversals of NLRB guidance have already been raised in litigation, though it will likely take some time for federal courts to resolve the matter. Jennifer Abruzzo’s role on the Biden transition team Despite the suddenness of Robb’s termination, discussions about replacing Robb mid-term had been underway at least several months, with at least the Communications Workers of America (CWA) reportedly advocating for Robb’s removal shortly after Biden’s election. Biden’s nominee to replace Robb, Jennifer Abruzzo, is both a senior attorney for the CWA and was a
PAGE 12
n FREEDOM MATTERS
member of the Biden agency review team (ART) charged with overseeing the Trump-Biden transition at the NLRB, potentially placing her in the position of having helped illegally terminate the person whose position she now seeks to fill. The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Labor, Education and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing on Abruzzo’s nomination on April 29. During the hearing, ranking minority member Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) pressed Abruzzo about her role in Robb’s termination. Abruzzo attempted to deflect, stating she was “asked to volunteer on the Department of Labor agency review team during the transition” and was “one member of about 25.” Under questioning, she eventually appeared to acknowledge recommending, or at least agreeing with a recommendation regarding, Robb’s termination to the incoming administration. The website for the Biden transition listed 23 members of the Department of Labor ART, including Abruzzo, though the website noted that the ART also had jurisdiction over eight other labor-related government agencies, including the NLRB. However, according to a Dec. 4, 2020 email from Beth Tursell, who served as the NLRB’s designated point of contact for the Biden transition team, to Ohr, Biden’s NLRB ART consisted only of two people: Abruzzo and Seema Nanda. This suggests that the 23 members of the Department of Labor ART were likely divvied up among the nine separate agencies in the “Department of Labor” ART, instead of all 23 engaging with all nine agencies as Abruzzo implied during her confirmation hearing. Advance knowledge of Robb’s termination On Dec. 28, 2020, San Francisco attorney David A. Rosenfeld of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld — a private firm that describes itself as “part of the labor movement” — emailed a brief letter to all NLRB regional directors, including Ohr. The letter read simply:
“Dear Regional Directors: Will you join me at Peter Robb’s office to help him move out on Jan. 20, 2021? Let me know. We can do it in person or remotely. He will be able to find work at some management law firm so he won’t have to seek any public assistance.” Despite its sarcastic tone, the missive nonetheless suggests Rosenfeld — who was neither part of the NLRB nor the Biden transition team — possessed foreknowledge of Robb’s fate at least a month in advance. Perhaps this advance notice happened to leak to Rosenfeld specifically, or perhaps the Biden transition team, including Abruzzo, promoted the incoming administration’s intention to terminate Robb broadly to unions and their allies well in advance. Retired regional directors opposed Robb’s termination On Jan. 26, 2021, Allen Binstock, retired director of NLRB Region 8, emailed a note to Ohr congratulating him on his appointment to acting general counsel and trashing Robb: “Congratulations on your appointment as Acting GC. For my money, I’d love to see you in that position permanently. It is such sweet justice to see Robb kicked out on his ass and you replace him. As low as I’ve felt these past few months, when I heard the news about your interim appointment, I got up and did a happy dance! Most of the retired RDs were opposed to Biden axing Robb, but not me. I know it sets a new precedent which the others were averse to seeing. But this situation was different in my mind because, as we both know, Robb did what he could to hollow out the agency and ruin it. It was only because of the brave resistance of people like you that he did not do more damage. So I celebrated when Robb was shown the door. But now I’m elated that you are in charge of the GC’s office.”
Binstock’s note is extraordinary for several reasons. First, it acknowledges that many with experience in NLRB leadership opposed the precedent that terminating a general counsel mid-term would set. But it is also a stunning acknowledgement of what some have labeled as the “deep state” — entrenched, career bureaucrats who work to thwart or “resist” the agenda of political appointees of the duly-elected American president.
Ohr and NLRB employees’ pro-union view of the agency’s mission While none expressed themselves quite as colorfully as Binstock, communications between Ohr and other NLRB employees show that many view their role as advancing a particular view of the agency’s mission, centered around promoting unionization, which they believe conflicted with Robb’s priorities and policies. The day after his inauguration, the White House distributed an unlisted YouTube video featuring President Biden to federal employees in which he told them, “You’re the ones running the show.” Ohr forwarded the video to his Region 13 staff, describing the message as “inspirational and reaffirming.” New York NLRB attorney Colleen Breslin forwarded the message to other NLRB officials, including Ohr, noting how she was “looking forward to new and beautiful things.” The Region 13 NLRB director, Mori Rubin, replied that she found the message “uplifting and inspiring.” On Jan. 25, NLRB chairperson Lauren McFerran emailed NLRB staff the announcement that President Biden had appointed Ohr as acting general counsel. Later in the day, Ohr followed up with an all-staff email in which he described the NLRB as “my home” and “what defines me” and promised to “make significant differences” to “fully effectuate the Act.” Emails between NLRB employees and Ohr explain a great deal about how they view the agency and their
distaste for the perspective and policies of Ohr’s predecessor. n A senior NLRB attorney emailed congratulations to Ohr, describing his appointment as “such a REFRESHING change!!!” n In an email, an assistant general counsel wrote Ohr, “Good for you, good for us, good for the country!” n A deputy regional attorney in Region 9 wrote, “What you heard out in the field upon your appointment was a huge sigh of relief and hope from us.” n In an email to Ohr, a field examiner supervisor in Chicago thanked him for a Jan. 26 meeting between him and NLRB employees in her office, writing that Ohr embodies “the true ethos of the Agency” and that his remarks produced “a spark of hope in my colleagues’ faces. People need to believe that their work matters and their voices will be heard, and you clearly communicated that message.” n A field attorney thanked Ohr for his “nuanced sensitivity to questions of privilege and access” and for “imbuing our work with more meaning, and for making so many feel seen.” n A regional attorney wrote that Ohr’s appointment represented “some justice.” A field attorney described Ohr’s appointment as a “breath of fresh air.” n Another NLRB employee wrote that Ohr’s message gave her “chills.” n Another wrote that they were “...(s)o happy and excited for you and all the many good things that you and our Agency will be able to accomplish and contribute for the betterment of the working people and for the recovery of our country.” n In email replies to the various congratulatory notes, Ohr wrote that he intended to “make history” and “fulfill the mission of the Act and bring back pride to the Agency.” None of the employees expressed an objection to Robb as a person or
manager, but clearly they opposed his views, and those of the Trump administration, on policy. Republican officials generally attempt to balance the competing interests of unions, employees and businesses when managing the NLRB and applying the NLRA. However, to many career employees and former union officials who staff the NLRB, the purpose of the Act is to promote unionization and collective bargaining. For many, as these emails show, this understanding is central to their personal identity and sense of meaning as NLRB employees. It’s also a view shared and repeated by President Biden himself. In a two-minute video released by the White House during the campaign to unionize Amazon workers in Bessemer, Ala., Biden stated, “The National Labor Relations Act didn’t just say that unions are allowed to exist; it said that we should encourage unions.” As Sean Higgins recently explained in Reason, this is a misreading both of the law’s history and text, but the view nevertheless appears to enjoy wide acceptance among NLRB staff. It also creates significant friction between Republican political appointees tasked with running the NLRB and the career staff who view their role not as implementing the policy agenda of the public as expressed through the elected executive, but serving the purported higher purpose of promoting unions, leading to the kinds of “resistance” movements among career federal bureaucrats that surfaced during the Trump administration. With former union officials like Abruzzo likely to be handed the reins at the NLRB soon, the next four years all but assure a continuation of the dramatically pro-union shift at the agency. And as shown by Ohr’s quick moves to rescind Robb’s guidance memos and policies — which Glenn Taubman of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation describes as “a record number of seismic policy shifts” — often this emphasis will come at the expense of employees’ freedom of choice. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 13
PAGE 14
n FREEDOM MATTERS
What does
Normal look like now? How much of what COVID has forced us to endure is here to stay, and how much of our freedom is gone for good?
a
s recently as Deccember 2019, could a single American could have envisioned a day when government at any level would have the audacity to bar people from attending church, holding weddings or funerals, visiting sick loved ones in a hospital or nursing home and forcing businesses to close their doors against their will, forbidding them from earning an honest dollar
By ASHLEY VARNER VP for Communications
to keep food on the table — if and when they even could get groceries at the store? And we haven’t started on what the teachers’ unions have done to our schools. And yet, here we are, looking around at a country we no longer recognize, at change that happened in a shorter amount of time than we
FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 15
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
C.S. LEWIS
we ever dared imagine possible. To quote President Ronald Reagan, “Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.” That whole “one generation” thing came up on us pretty quickly. We could debate how we got here, but there’s no doubting we’re here. The question is, where is here? With COVID-related government restrictions finally showing the first signs of retreat, are we headed back to normal, or have we lost sight of what normal used to mean? In return for the empty promise of safety from a virus that doesn’t credit good intentions, countless Americans willingly — eagerly, even — handed away freedoms we foolishly took for granted and are now having to fight bitterly to get back. America has been told for a year and a half to “listen to the science,” even though that science changed from week to week depending on the whims and opportunism of those in political office. It started out innocently enough. The vast majority of Americans understood we didn’t know much about this new virus, and there weren’t a lot of details coming out of China about how it spread. For the most part, we were willing to err on the side of caution, even when we were told it might mean a 15-day shutdown. PAGE 16
n FREEDOM MATTERS
That was on March 16, 2020. As of this writing, there is still no clear or consistent timetable for fully reopening our society. In their eagerness to save an undetermined number of lives, Americans acquiesced to demands that we squander liberty and rights countless forefathers fought and died to safeguard. Perhaps this is because in the beginning, we were given hope; we were told this was just a short-term inconvenience so we could defeat this new crisis. Americans have always shouldered responsibility, and COVID was framed as just another opportunity to show our mettle to the rest of the world. But it didn’t take long for that hope to turn to confusion. And with confusion, frustration. At first, we were told not to bother with masks — only healthcare professionals need the masks. Do not run out and buy masks; save those for doctors and nurses. Teachers’ unions told worried school superintendents and parents they’d shut down for a week or two ahead of the scheduled spring break so they could figure things out and come up with a plan, only to drag their feet on re-opening while holding desperate families held hostage to their ever-growing list of politically motivated prerequisites.
Sensing an opportunity, mayors and governors across the country called for canceling all spring break activities, which then moprhed into bans on weddings and funerals, and forbidding Easter celebrations. Then-President Trump thought America would re-open in time for families to gather for Easter, but “The Science” screamed otherwise. Now there were calls for shutting down visitations to nursing homes and hospitals, and a ban on travel for Memorial Day. And masks. Never mind that America’s top doctors told us only weeks prior that masks were a waste for those not in the healthcare profession. Americans now had to cover half their face when they wanted to go out in public. ”Oceania had never been at war with Eastasia.” And we thought George Orwell’s “1984” was a fictional novel, not a how-to guide. By this time, the school year had all but been scrapped and teachers’ unions promised to use the summer to come up with a plan for re-opening in the fall. The idea of turning the recovery plan over to unions would be funny if the results hadn’t been so tragic. By this time, many Americans had cabin fever and wanted to return to a sense of normalcy. But our elect-
ed “leaders” had grown to enjoy their newfound emergency powers, so the heavy hands of government had to force continued compliance under penalty of law. In the months since, we’ve watched governors impose fines and jail time on small business owners who dared try and earn a living, while Big Box super stores have remained open and thrived due to the forced shutdowns of their competition. We’ve seen houses of worship and fitness gyms close while liquor stores — especially the state-run and -operated liquor stores — remain open. Mom-and-pop restaurants have shuttered their doors for good, and life savings and investments are gone forever. But the government keeps handing out stimulus checks to keep people just above the misery index level and so preening politicians can pat themselves on the back for saving the day. Let’s be clear — government had to shut down churches, schools and businesses because people wanted to attend church and school and go about their daily lives while supporting local businesses. Drunk on this newfound power, elected officials — and their unelected cronies in governmental health departments across the country — stole the keys to the American economic engine and shattered our social fabric so they could hail themselves as the savior of the crisis and tell us they were doing this for our own good. It didn’t happen slowly at all, but as frogs, we didn’t notice the water being turned up because we were constantly inundated with fear-mongering propaganda the likes the Chinese Communist Party must have drooled over. Not only were we told to wear masks, but we were told to double mask. And in at least one interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci posited that if two masks were good, three masks might be even better. School children have been kept from in-person education for more than a year. The devastating effects of the lack of academic instruction,
socialization, and quality of mental health will be felt for generations. Houses of worship, if they are permitted by government to reopen for services, are sometimes still banned from music or chanting. Domestic violence is on the rise and suicide rates are up, including adolescent self-harm. But Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s husband wanted to be sure he was first to get his boat on the lake for Memorial Day weekend. And California Gov. Gavin Newsom enjoyed a fancy group dinner at one of the most expensive restaurants in the country. Meanwhile, Newsom also kept California public schools closed even as his own young children attended their private school in-person. Don’t forget, New York Mayor and Mrs. Bill DeBlasio had a lovely New Years’ Eve in an empty Times Square, dancing gaily while millions watched on television because no one was allowed to participate on the streets. Who could have seen this coming? A day in America when a government official could ban inperson church services? When teachers’ unions could skip to the front of the line for COVID vaccines before they would return to school, but then instructed their own teachers in Chicago not to let anyone know if they actually got the shot? When the Centers for Disease Control adjusted its re-opening guidelines to fit the desires of a union lobby that invested $20 million into Democrat campaigns in 2020? Thankfully, more and more Americans began seeing the light toward the end of the summer when they realized schools weren’t re-opening in states that had strong, politically active teacher unions while truck drivers, healthcare professionals and grocery store employees had been back on the job for months. It’s not just about schools or churches, or the lost small businesses that will never come back. The government continues to impose mask mandates that force people to signal approval of what has become a political statement that isn’t backed up by science and flies in the face of an American open society.
Americans in many parts of the country greet strangers with a smile and a friendly hello. Yes, it still happens. We can gauge a person’s mood or take a quick threat assessment by studying their facial expression. Covering half our face with a mask not only cuts off physical expressions of mood and personality, but also of basic humanity. It’s easy not to even look someone in the face when half their face is covered anyway. When immediate judgments are made about a person based on whether or not they are wearing a mask, we are further dividing ourselves and dehumanizing each other. And even after a year and several months in, that hope we were given early on to put in “15 days to slow the spread,” there is no such talk of quickly moving out of this public health crisis. Government officials have gained too much to set us free. It’s not all bad news, though. Much of the country has seen the danger in continuing these tyrannical lockdowns and have forced a re-opening of their societies. In much of the South and Midwest, schools are open to in-person education, churches have resumed services, business owners can choose how they want to protect their employees and customers and people can conduct much of their daily lives without wearing a mask. And once you’ve remembered what freedom tastes like, how do you willingly go back to dictatorial rules that don’t make sense, change without explanation and seem to only serve those in power? We are easier to control when we’re divided — and boy, is this country divided. It doesn’t stop until we make it stop. Simplistic as it sounds, we need to stop fighting with each other about who’s killing grandma and actually examine the science, the infection versus death rate, the things we can do to take precautions for ourselves and our families, and remember the freedoms we once had and should enjoy again. That’s the real danger to their power. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 17
J
Paying Off
oe Biden vowed on the campaign trail that carrying out the unions’ agenda would be his top priority. Sadly, for the country, he seems determined to keep his word in spades. Less than half an hour after taking office, in fact, Biden’s first action as president was to illegally fire the general counsel of the National Labor In return for Relations Board. investing The general counsel is responsible for the millions in investigation and prosecution Joe Biden's of unfair labor practices, as campaign, well as overseeing the field offices around the country, unions are where union elections are expecting a conducted. And unlike most return of billions from bills appointed positions, the general counsel at NLRB like the PRO Act and the serves a full four-year term, infrastructure package. independent of the board, regardless of a change in administration. Biden followed up by nominating By RUSTY BROWN Marty Walsh, a former union organizer, to National Outreach Coordinator serve as Secretary of Labor. Then in early March, the union wish list — euphemistically dubbed the PRO Act — resurfaced on the House floor, and by late March, Biden unveiled his plans the beneficiaries. Instead, it will Biden’s for the infrastructure bill that, in reality, is already-wealthy Big Labor cronies. little more than a Big Government payoff The bill does designate $600 billion to to his union buddies. build and rebuild actual infrastructure, Although it remains to be seen what where we will almost certainly see the exactly the final infrastructure legislation contracts go to unionized employers. will encompass, the outline of the $2 The true intentions of the plan trillion bill has more than half going to are highlighted in the Project Labor growing government and paying off union Agreements, neutrality mandates for allies while funding it through the everemployers benefiting from the plan and flawed Robin Hood logic. the $400 billion earmarked to increase In this case, however, the robbing from home healthcare for elderly and disabled the rich comes in the form of jacking up Americans. corporate taxes, but the poor won’t be The Freedom Foundation is all too
PAGE 18
n FREEDOM MATTERS
FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 19
The PRO Act would override right-to-work laws in 27 states
familiar with how unions have exploited Medicaid through the Home Healthcare program, to the tune of more than $250 million per year funneled into their coffers. Of course, this is after they fulfilled the requirement of holding sham elections where they were voted in to represent hundreds of thousands of home healthcare workers. The states that opened the door for the unions were almost exclusively non-Right to Work, so prior to Harris v. Quinn in 2014, these people were forced to pay full dues or agency fees as a condition of employment. Setting aside philosophical opinions on unionization, this program deals with individuals unlike any other unionized workforce in existence, and the problem is obvious when considering what this program actually does and is meant to do. Home healthcare workers are, in most cases, not workers in the traditional sense. There are exceptions, but the vast majority of care providers are simply looking after a family member or close friend. The home healthcare program is meant to be a way for a mother to take care of a disabled child who will never recover or to keep an elderly relative in the comforts of home for as long as possible. PAGE 20
n FREEDOM MATTERS
The program is paid for through Medicaid and provides all kinds of benefits for its recipients, including an assessment for how much personal care is needed on a weekly basis, for which the caregiver is paid an hourly wage. This “wage” is certainly not going to help anyone get rich — nor was it ever intended to. The objective is make it possible for someone who would otherwise be unable to stay home and care for their loved ones. Somehow, Big Labor thinks they deserve a piece of this money and has instructed its bought-and-paidfor politicians — like Joe Biden, for example — to make it happen. The dues structure for homecare providers is typically a flat 3 percent of gross pay, meaning the $400 billion proposed in the Infrastructure Bill would open the door for a potential $12 billion in thank-you money for Big Labor. Unions have always leaned left, but now they proudly stand behind the most extreme ideas possible, often contradicting the core values and principles of their members. It is no surprise that when members are properly educated on the politics of these organizations, where their money goes and what a union really can and can’t do for them, they’ll either opt out or demand changes.
This education process is what the pro-union labor world refers to as “union busting.” The banning of this education process is called “neutrality” and is another major component in both the PRO Act and infrastructure bill. Instead of focusing on serving the members they represent, unions would rather call in a favor from political allies and have government force workers to join. The other major provision included in the infrastructure bill is to restart the practice of encouraging project labor agreements (PLAs) on government contracts, similar to the Obama Executive Order asking government agencies to consider using them. There is an entire website dedicated to the problems with PLAs, and the bottom line is, it kills competition and drives up costs. Including PLAs in the infrastructure bill and having the practice instituted through state legislatures would make it law rather than a suggestion, offering little recourse for non-unionized government contractors, driving up the tax burden and, of course, slipping more money into the unions’ pockets. Unions around the country are always organizing, and new petitions for representation elections are
filed every single day. The average American never hears about them, but the recent high-profile union election held in Alabama to organize an Amazon warehouse is a case in point. For months, Americans listened to the media, Hollywood elites and liberal politicians talk about the abhorrent working conditions Amazon employees were forced to endure and the horrible pay they received in return. There were stories about employees having to wear diapers to work because they weren’t allowed restroom breaks during their shifts. Yet the employees rejected the union by a 3-to-1 margin. Why? Because none of those allegations were true. The employees were paid well and happy to be there. Over the course of the election, Joe Biden himself posted a video, encouraging the employees in Alabama to join the union and including several references to the PRO Act, which was ramrodded through the House two weeks later without so much as a committee hearing or even public testimony. There was a growing belief among those in the labor world that taking a loss with Amazon would actually be more politically beneficial by helping to make a case for the PRO Act. As soon as the results were announced, the union started putting out the word that the poor workers in Alabama would have the help they needed if it weren’t for the unionbusting tactics used by Amazon. Labor unions owe their very existence to politics, and this is
true now more than it has ever been because they look to the public sector for the future of their organizations. Private-sector union membership has been in precipitous decline for over half a century. At the peak of union popularity, more than 40 percent of all private-sector American workers were unionized, but that number began to decline in the late 1950s now hovers around 10 percent. Meanwhile, government employee unions have grown at roughly the same rate. Public-sector unions weren’t even legal until the early 1960s, but now they’re knocking on the door of representing 40 percent of all government employees in America. And to make matters worse, government grows every year. Political candidates who receive support or an endorsement from a labor union are overwhelmingly those who promise to grow the government in one sector or another, and this model has proven successful from the school boards all the way up to the president. The PRO Act, and now the infrastructure bill, are just the latest examples of the union business model in action. During the 2020 presidential election, Biden secured endorsements from almost all major labor unions, however many admitted their actions were not supported by the rank and file. Unions constantly tell their members, “you are the union,” yet where politics are concerned, it’s a
different story. Unions try to camouflage the reality that they are a business, no different from any other except in terms of the product they’re selling. Unions have employees who have families that need to be provided for, and in order to pay those employees, they must consider their own best interests, whether that be an organizing drive, contract negotiations or engaging in politics. Unfortunately, when you have a business model based on extortion, those most skilled at manipulation are the ones who rise to the top, and that’s the lens through which they view the world. Labor unions are the biggest contributors to the political arena and, with few exceptions, all of it goes to Democratic candidates and left-leaning causes. More than 34,000 individual unions filed financial disclosure reports with the Department of Labor in 2020. Of those, just 10 of the largest spent more than $250 million on political activities and lobbying, and another $140 million on gifts, grants and contributions. On top of this figure, there are thousands of unions that only represent public-sector employees not required to file reports with the Department of Labor. Consequently, there is no detailed public record of how they spend their money. And sadly, it is their members who are hurt the most by this. Labor unions’ involvement in politics doesn’t stop at money. They also serve as boots on the ground, knocking on millions upon millions of doors for various candidates around the country, encompassing all levels of government. Although unions are a business, politics is where they set themselves apart from the rest of corporate America. American corporations do have common interests, but they tend to vary by industry and the culture of an individual corporation has a lot to do with their geographical location. Unions, on the other hand, tend to be more cohesive. They share a common industry (labor) and they will take orders from the top down rather than from the bottom up, no matter what they tell the members. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 21
PAGE 22
n FREEDOM MATTERS
Justice Balance in the
With the Left controlling, for now, Congress and the White House, they're planning an unprecedented power grab to take the Supreme Court, too.
T
he nation’s liberal leaders, having recently secured a tenuous hold over two branches of the nation’s government but fearful of losing it in 2022 or even sooner, are mulling a plan to take over the U.S. Supreme
Court, too. Under normal circumstances, such a scheme would be thwarted by the happy reality that there don’t presently seem to be any vacancies on the court. But why trifle over details? When it’s your game, the reasoning goes, you can make up your own rules. In so doing, By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL however, the Litigation Counsel plotters would not only repeat one of the most egregious abuses of executive power in American history (see below), but the plan would destroy the very legitimacy upon which the court relies to perform its duties in our constitutional republic. There is a big difference between following what the Constitution requires and trying to make the Constitution fit your preferred politics. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 23
SCOTUS a Unique Branch of the Federal Government Alexander Hamilton (when he was only a Founding Father and not starring in a Broadway musical) once wrote in regard to the function of the then-newly proposed Supreme Court, that it “may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” Echoing this principle several decades later, Chief Justice John Marshall, largely credited with being the most important and influential justice in the court’s history, famously wrote that “(I)t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” To review basic civics — which, for modern students, might be an entirely new concept — Congress makes the laws, the president enforces the laws and the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of laws. Whether a statute or regulation comports with the Constitution is not supposed to depend on politics — especially not based upon the political preferences of individual justices. The Framers of the Constitution went out of their way to insulate the court from the passions and prejudices of politics. Their methods include lifetime appointments by the president, rather than term limits or direct election by the people. In plain terms, the Supreme Court is supposed to be above the political fray. These anti-democratic features of the court are not flaws to be corrected; they are essential features to be safeguarded and handed on to future generations. Members of the court are not “super-legislators,” tasked with divining the desirability of congressional action based on public opinion or their own political preferences. No one elected the members of the court to make new law. Rather, the Supreme Court is specifically designed to exist outside the pressures of politics as the justices make decisions based not on what the law should be, but what the law actually is.
Rhetoric vs. Reality: How Justices are Appointed
While certain parts of the Constitution can be notoriously vague PAGE 24 n FREEDOM MATTERS
does not require (or forbid) a specific number of justices. Throughout American history,
(for example, defining “due process” or “equal protection”), the specifics of how appointments to the Supreme Court are to be made are crystal clear. The president possesses broad discretion to nominate whomever he or she chooses to occupy a vacant seat on the court. And with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, those nominees are either confirmed or rejected. Rhetorical flourishes notwithstanding, there is no such thing as a “stolen” seat because no one party or political ideology owns it in the first place. The Constitution defines no limitations on whom the president may choose as a nominee, and he is answerable to no one but the voters for his choice. Nor does the Constitution make provision for how and when the Senate is required to perform its oversight function. It is usually conducted through a formal hearing, but institutional tradition is the only guide.
FDR Threatens to Unleash a Constitutional Crisis
Proponents of court-packing are quick to note that the Constitution
in fact, the number of justices has ranged from six to 10. The determining factor is that increasing (or reducing) the number of justices for narrow ideological purposes does not align with the true function of the court or reflect the principles of the Framers. Not that this made any difference to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Much like current President Joe Biden, FDR was determined to exploit a crisis, in his case the Great Depression, to remake America in his preferred image. This included the creation of a vast, unelected bureaucracy (the modern administrative state) charged with regulating the activities and lives of Americans in then-unimagined ways. There was only one problem — many of the laws he supported were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court had the bad form to say so. Consequently, FDR came up with the perfect scheme — change the law to add enough liberal justices to outvote his opponents, then institute mandatory retirement ages for those who disagreed so they would be kicked off the court. Fortunately, cooler heads pre-
counted and reputations permanently and irreparably damaged.
Where Do Things Stand Currently?
vailed, and this proposed change was never put into effect. But it was not without consequences. Rather than see the court’s legitimacy eroded, the members switched their positions and began to support FDR’s “New Deal” legislation, despite the clear unconstitutionality of many provisions. But this “switch in time that saved nine” set a dangerous precedent. The court’s slide from a purely judicial body to one mired in politics had begun.
Modern Contoversies and the Supreme Court
During the 1960s and ’70s, the court became more and more involved in deciding cases concerning high stakes social issues, like the constitutionality of abortion. Consequently, the ideological makeup of the court became of paramount concern for liberal activists. Heaven forbid the justices decide a preferred law or activity in a manner did not comport with the Constitution. Where ideology and the Constitution are concerned, the Constitution must give way. Going forward, the dividing line for considering new appointees to the
court would turn on one major consideration. Not based upon the nominees’ experience or other qualifications, but how a given justice interpret the Constitution whether those interpretations would it support outcomes the liberals supported. Never mind that interpretative methods like textualism or originalism (favored by conservatives) yield most restrained and consistent results in line with the intentions of the Framers. Liberals want the Constitution to be interpreted according to what they think is the “purpose” of a given provision, with the only limitation on the purpose being the scope of their own social aspirations and political goals. And so, we can observe a major shift in the confirmation process for new justices since the late 1980s up to the present day. Instead of receiving widespread support from across the aisle based on actual qualifications and no matter the political party of the president (the usual course of events for the majority of history), the confirmation process has now devolved into a public catfight in which no unsubstantiated charge is too outrageous to make, points are
In a historic term, President Donald Trump successfully appointed three new members to the court — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. But the liberals in Congress have vowed not to let these constitutional and entirely legitimate appointments go unchallenged. Instead, they propose to destroy the Supreme Court in order to “save it.” This cannot be allowed to happen. The late Justice Antonin Scalia once described a particularly notorious legal test as “some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried…” This metaphor also works for courtpacking proposals. The very idea that a justice’s rulings can be predicted by examining his or her presumed politics should be offensive to both sides of the aisle, and just goes to show just how far from the Framers’ design we have strayed. Thinking of justices in terms of their political preferences gets it exactly backward. The entire point of interpretative philosophies like textualism and originalism is to specifically limit the ability of justices to substitute their own preferences for what the Constitution requires. This is the exact opposite of liberal “purposive” schools of thought, which seek to subvert the law to the preferences of unelected (and likely elderly) justices, substituting their will for the will of the people. In our republic, political power does not rest with the court, the president, or even the Congress. It resides with the people. And it was the people who instituted the Constitution to restrain government from subverting their lives and liberty. This vital bulwark against tyranny applies with as much strength now as it did in 1787. Contrary to new and old courtpacking schemes, the further intrusion of politics into the Supreme Court is not a goal to be pursued, but an aberration to be avoided and corrected. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 25
By JAMI LUND Senior Policy Analyst
PAGE 26
n FREEDOM MATTERS
Is America's
a bad thing? We're constantly lectured about the importance of political unity. But that advice always seems to come from the party in power, not the one trying to get it back.
T
he theme of Joe Biden’s inauguration — on paper, at least — was unifying the country. But the fledgling chief executive wasn’t more than a few sentences into his inaugural address before demonstrating his commitment to the term comes with the caveat “...around my beliefs, not yours.” “(L)et’s give each other a chance. It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric. To lower the temperature. To see each other again. To listen to each other
By JEFF RHODES VP for News & Information
again. To make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy. We are not enemies. We are Americans. The Bible tells us that to everything there is a season — a time to build, a time to reap, a time to sow. And a time to heal. This is the time to heal in America.” Heal what, exactly? And why is now the time to heal it? To Biden and those who voted for him, the answer is obvious. They're convinced country is broken and needs fixing because someone with a different set of values — in this case Republican Donald Trump — spent
FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 27
U.S. politics used to be more civil? Sen. Sumner disagrees On May 22, 1856, the “world's greatest deliberative body” became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate Chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness. The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Sen. Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the union as a slave state or a free state. In his “Crime Against Kansas” speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime — Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a “noise-some, squat and nameless animal … not a proper model for an American senator.” Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator’s stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking “a mistress … who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean,” added Sumner, “the harlot, slavery.” Rep. Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech. Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metaltopped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head.
previous four years in the White House enacting his vision, and that of the millions who voted him into office. Suffice to say Trump backers are about as likely to agree the country needs a course correction now as Barack Obama’s supporters were when his term ended in 2016. And neither side has a monopoly on “harsh rhetoric” when they come up a few votes short. Where were Joe Biden’s calls for unity when Leftists literally rioted,
PAGE 28
n FREEDOM MATTERS
As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended. Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions. Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately re-elected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.
looted and burned in the streets over a lost election? Was he urging disgruntled liberals to give Trump a chance, or was he backing the baseless impeachment effort his party literally launched before Trump had spent even a day in office? For his part, Trump expended little effort during his administration inveighing on the virtues of unity, presumably because one only had to glance at the front page of any mainstream media newspaper to understand he needn’t bother.
— Courtesy of the U.S. Senate
Meanwhile, in the few months since Biden’s bitterly contested election victory, at least 50 major publications, and their associated web pages, have carried stories echoing his call for harmony. To cite just a few: n “Biden vowed to unite the country. Can he do that?” (Washington Post, Jan. 21, 2021); n “Biden wants to unite the country. How can he do it?” (Politico, Jan. 21, 2021);
n “Joe Biden wants to unify America” (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2021); n “Biden wants to unite America — Republicans have a different idea of what that means (NBC News, Jan. 20, 2021); n “Biden’s elusive goal: A divided nation united” (Roll Call, Jan. 20, 2021); and, most euphemistically of all, n “Biden inherits a deeply divided nation, but most voters think he can bring unity (BBC, Jan. 19, 2021).
Really? And what do they base conclusion this on? The fact that he says he wants everyone to get along? Of course he does. Like every other human being on the planet, Joe Biden wants everyone to agree with his ideas and make it easier to get his way. But acquiescence and unity aren’t the same thing. Nor should they be. Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats spent four years fully availing themselves of their constitutional right — and obligation, some would say — to represent the “loyal opposition” viewpoint to everything that came out of Donald Trump’s mouth. At the drop of a hat, their righteous indignation would boil over into a jeremiad about how this country was created by revolution and why vigorous protest is the duty of every patriot. But now that the tables have turned, we’re all expected to link arms and smile obligingly as Biden and his allies dismantle programs and policies at least half the country enthusiastically support even if they didn’t always admire Trump’s colorful verbiage when describing them. Trump never asked any quarter, nor did he extend any. Then again, neither did his predecessor. In a fit of pique, Obama once famously told his detractors, “I won. Get over it.” In a more contemplative mood, however, he then added: "You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't
break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about." The two quotes are obviously completely contradictory, but politics is the province of hypocrisy. And at the presidential level — particularly for presidents like Obama, who enjoy favor with the mainstream media — it’s seldom accompanied by a penalty. In point of fact, principled opposition is always a bad thing when your party is in power but a wonderful thing when it isn’t. And since we can never be entirely certain when to expect one or the other, it’s probably not a bad idea to preserve freedom of speech for both sides. Is the nation divided nowadays? Most assuredly. But when wasn’t it? The notion that the country’s political divide can be bridged is at least sophistry. But any reference to a time when it didn’t even exist is something much worse — a boldfaced lie. When was this era of universal comity? Was it during the country’s infancy, when its sitting vice president was killed in a duel by the former Secretary of the Treasury over their competing visions of the form the government should take? Was it during the Civil War, when 620,000 Americans on differing sides of a political question were killed and the president later assassinated by a constituent unable to “get over it?” Could it have been during the 1950s and ’60s, when the U.S. was grappling with contentious subjects like civil rights and the conflict in Vietnam? Democrats no doubt wax nostalgic for the Roosevelt years, believing there must have been unanimity if he was elected to four terms. But that assumption overlooks the reality that our singleness of purpose was actually reserved for our Japanese and German enemies during World War II, who helpfully managed to show up just in time to prevent anyone from taking a hard look at FDR’s near-criminal mishandling of the Great Depression. In terms of political ideology, you might imagine the parties could have found common ground in 1972, when the voters re-elected by a landslide a Republican president who
was a confirmed champion of big government and higher taxes. A man whose administration oversaw the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, normalized relations with Communist China, participated in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) to reduce the availability of ballistic missiles and even instituted wage and price controls. But if you think Richard Nixon was the Democrats’ idea of a kindred spirit, you’re not old enough to remember the endless impeachment hearings and the Left’s unrestrained glee when he was finally driven from office. The plain, historic truth is that the political harmony so many claim to miss never existed in the first place. It may appear to when the branches of government are under the control of one party — yours — but it’s doubtful those who spent the same period on the short end of the stick recall them so fondly. That’s one of the curses of democracy — but ironically one of its major blessings. Contrary to popular myth, Americans don’t crave unity unless the rest of the country magically decides to coalesce around what we, as an individual, happen to believe. Which can’t possibly happen. Nor do we send our elected representatives to the state capital or Washington, D.C., to make compromises in the interest of “getting things done.” When we entrust a politician with our vote, we rightfully expect them to represent our interests, not those of the losing candidate. The only people for whom gridlock is a dirty word are those whose agenda is blocked because of it. For everyone else, there’s something far worse than a donothing Congress, Legislature or president — and that’s one that busies itself doing things we don’t like. There are lots of countries in the world where everyone agrees with what the government does. Because they’re afraid not to. Whichever side of the political divide you happen to find yourself on, however, pray the United States never enjoys that kind of unity. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 29
PAGE 30
n FREEDOM MATTERS
Biden thinks he can take unions
For generations, organized labor has been on the decline — especially in the private sector. But the new president is determined to reverse that trend. or the better part of the past century, organized labor has witnessed tremendous growth in the government sector while experiencing record lows among private-sector workers. There are a variety of well-documented reasons for the shift, on the one side stemming from the natural limitations of the relationship between unions and employers in the private sector and, on the other, from the near-limitless promise of growth by union-aligned government officials. Yet in recent years, the promises organized labor found so attractive in the government sector have begun to slowly disappear. Perhaps most importantly, the U.S.
By BEN STRAKA Policy Analyst
Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME extended “right-to-work” (RTW) protections to public employees nationwide, meaning state and local governments can no longer require their workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. In fact, Although most unions — at times, with the last the help of state legislatures — responded to the Janus decision by developing a series of workarounds that have made it more difficult for public employees to end their financial support, such efforts have been
FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 31
only partially effective at slowing the decline in government unions’ overall revenue. Further, a series of additional legal challenges appear poised to make it back to the high court, where they could potentially end the unions’ ability to sidestep Janus once and for all. Without the once-guaranteed influx of cash from workers who could be forced to pay whether they wanted to or not, it may be dawning on the labor movement that government unions are no longer the fount of wealth they used to be. The question appears to be, then, can private-sector unions rise again to take their place? Union leaders are determined to find out. On the campaign trail, President Joe Biden now famously promised to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen” — and he wasn’t just talking about government unions. At least not directly, since there’s very little that can be done about publicsector labor law at the federal level — and even less that can be done legislatively at any level to affect the RTW protections recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus. But for the first time in generations, private-sector unions are a different story. Or at least the Left believes they are. Regulated almost entirely by federal law and unaffected by Janus, there’s plenty Biden can do — and has already done — to fulfill his promise to organized labor. Most notably, under the Biden administration, Democrats in Congress have introduced the “Protecting the Right to Organize”(PRO) Act, a sweeping piece of legislation designed to rewrite the rulebook on union organizing in favor of Big Labor and at the expense of private-sector workers and their employers. Most egregiously, the PRO Act would impose a nationwide ban on RTW protections for private-sector employees. Currently, a majority of U.S. states — 27, to be exact — have enacted these longstanding laws, which were authorized by the federal Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, and which, like Janus for public employees, prevent private-sector workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees
PAGE 32
n FREEDOM MATTERS
as a condition of keeping their jobs. If union leaders can no longer force public employees to pay, they must reason, then why not their privatesector counterparts? Needless to say, private-sector workers who’ve enjoyed RTW protections for years probably won’t be thrilled about suddenly having union dues forcibly deducted from their paychecks once more. But from Big Labor’s perspective, it’s a chance to reshape the basket in which they might put all their eggs. Far from the only radical change sought by unions under the Biden administration, the PRO Act’s potential repeal of RTW is accompanied by a host of other provisions that, in no uncertain terms, signal that the labor movement’s renewed focus is squarely set on reversing its decades-long decline in private-sector membership. In other words, private is back in, baby. Or so they hope. In reality, the question of whether private-sector unions can ever return to their former prominence requires a closer examination of the factors that contributed to their decline in the first place, along with a look at what made the government workforce so ripe for growth in their stead. Finally, it requires a determination as to whether any of these factors have changed — and if so, in which direction. Labor leaders often like to tout that unions are responsible for many things American workers take for granted today, like the eight-hour workday, 40-hour workweek, “fair” wages, the abolishment of child labor and safer workplaces. And it’s true unions deserve some recognition for hastening those reforms. But by the same token, many of the problems unions were created to combat are now codified into law and strictly regulated by hundreds of federal and state agencies. To their credit, most of the ills unions originally set out to cure simply no longer plague American workplaces. In theory, that’s not necessarily a problem for union leaders, who never seem bothered with idea of pushing for more. But they’ve always faced certain
practical limitations in the private sector. For example, unions can only ask private-sector employers for so much before running the risk of putting them out of business. If union negotiators bargain a business into the ground, who does that help? Obviously nobody — including the union’s members. Although there are certainly some exceptions, this natural limitation has generally forced private-sector unions to keep their demands within reason. Thus, over time, with fewer real battles to fight and less of substance to push for, union leaders turned their sights to a realm where none of the pesky limitations of free competition exist. Beginning in the mid-1950s, union membership in the private sector began to decline steadily and was replaced by the rapid growth of government unions. There were economic and regulatory changes that contributed to the shift, to be sure, but most importantly, in the public sector, nothing except political will stood in the way of labor’s unchecked growth. Despite their diminished presence among private-sector workers, unions grew exponentially more powerful in states where they could successfully help the very officials they “bargain” with get elected. With taxpayers footing the bill, there was (and still is) virtually no limit to collective bargaining demands. After all, the government doesn’t go out of business — it just goes into debt. Consequently, government unions have grown right alongside the size of government over the past several decades. For union leaders, it was the perfect arrangement. Until Janus. If nothing else, organized labor’s sudden renewed interest in the private sector — and the PRO Act in particular — following Janus reveals just how much its continued survival hinges on the ability to force workers to pay dues whether they want to or not. Ironically, that simple realization may also answer the million-dollar question about whether private-sector unions can mount the comeback Big Labor hopes they can. There’s a reason the movement
chalks up most of its failures to conspiratorial “attacks on the working class” by shadowy billionaire elites. Like a high school has-been whose date left him on prom night, organized labor dosn’t seem to want to face the harsh reality that, in many cases, modern workers simply don’t want to be organized. They want to be free, and want the flexibility to decide their own destiny. Whether industry has changed to accommodate those preferences — or more likely, vice versa — the result is the same. Private-sector employees find unions less attractive than they once did. The tech boom. The emergence of the gig economy. Remote work. All of these innovations are largely incompatible with the traditional union model (which is why, for instance, the PRO Act also contains provisions targeting the gig economy and seeking to classify independent contractors as employees who can be unionized).
Americans are also now far less likely to stay in one job for their whole career than they once were — leading today’s employers to offer increasingly appealing incentives for them to stay. The recent saga of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union’s failed attempt to unionize an Amazon fulfillment center in Alabama provides a timely example. In the most high-profile privatesector union election in recent memory, workers earlier this year voted down the union in a landslide, by more than a 2-to-1 margin. The RWDSU may be committed to crying foul until the end of time, but workers who were interviewed expressed very clear, legitimate reasons for not wanting the union to come between themselves and their employer. “Amazon is the only job I know where they pay your health insurance from Day 1,” one couple told The New York Times. They added that the union
“failed to convince them how it could improve their working conditions,” as the company “already provides good benefits, relatively high pay that starts at $15 an hour and opportunities to advance.” If that sounds familiar, recall what was discussed earlier. It’s a perfect encapsulation of the factors that drove unions towards obsolescence in the private sector in the first place. No real ills for unions to cure, and a limit to what they can promise. The exact opposite of government. So, can organized labor make a comeback in the private sector? Only time will tell, but the prospects don’t look especially bright. Like the high school has-been of decades past, it may have peaked in the 1950s. It just doesn’t know it yet. And you know what? Eventually it may face reality. But until then, you can bet it will stay at the party for as long as possible — whether anybody wants it there or not. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 33
Why do 'environmentalists' recoil in horror at the safest, cheapest, cleanest energy available to us? Maybe it's because the movement's leaders care more about killing capitalism than they do about science or economic progress. By JEFF RHODES VP for News & Information
F
ew things perplex scientists who’ve taken the time to carefully study nuclear energy more than the unwavering opposition to it from liberals in general and selfprofessed environmentalists in particular. Where they make their mistake is in applying the metrics of logic to an ideology whose adherents care only about political clout and long ago learned to assume any pleasing form needed to advance their core objectives. “America's liberal leaders are torn between fighting climate change and resisting nuclear power,” noted Axios climate reporter Amy Harder in 2017. “The nuclear power industry, which provides the U.S. nearly two-thirds of its carbon-free electricity, is reaching an inflection point,” she wrote. “Several power plants are shutting down under economic duresss, which is putting
PAGE 34
n FREEDOM MATTERS
the non-
Nuclear Option FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 35
pressure on Congress and state legislatures to keep them open, while a new generation of advanced nuclear technologies need government backing to get off the ground.” And yet knee-jerk opposition to all things nuclear has long been a litmus test for leftists — not in spite of, but somehow because of the almost religious fervor with which they demand we adopt draconian protections for every sub-species of worm wrigglng in every mud puddle in America. How to explain this seeming contradiction. After all, it’s clear we cannot depend on energy from foreign countries, especially those that consider us the Great Satan. For a few brief months during the Trump administration the U.S. became a net exporter of energy for the first time in decades. But within hours of taking the oath of office, President Biden revoked the permit on the Keystone Pipeline with no realistic alternative domestic energy source on the horizon. Whatever Biden’s motive for doing so, it wasn’t to make energy cheaper or safer for Americans or anyone else. Writing on howstuffworks.com, Marshall Brain explains that “a pound of highly enriched uranium Ö is equal to something on the order of a million gallons of gasoline,” and the energy equivalent to one metric ton of nuclear fuel is a few million tons of fossil fuel. Even better, no noxious gases — in fact, no pollutants whatsoever — are emitted from nuclear power plants. And radioactivity is relatively a minor issue with nuclear power because coal-fired PAGE 36
power plants are guilty of emitting 100 times more radiation. Critics wail about the potential for a Chernobyllike catastrophe in the United States, but such fears only betray their ignorance. Unlike the antiquated and hopelessly flawed Russian design, all “reactors at (U.S.) nuclear power plants are encased in steel-reinforced concrete containment structures up to four feet thick,” notes Environment & Climate News. If a horrific accident were to happen in this country, the containment building would prevent the escape of dangerous radioactivity. And contrary to the fearmongering of environmental alarmists, nuclear power plants cannot be made into nuclear bombs. Even if terrorists attempted to attack a nuclear reactor (which can withstand the force of a commercial jetliner impact), they would have to breach the best security money can buy. The waste issue is the most popular argument for those inexorably warring against nuclear power. But how much waste are we talking about? Compare burning millions of tons of fossil fuels with a mere 20 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste. A sensible solution to disposing of the waste is to encapsulate it in glass, steel and lead and bury it deep in the desert. Liberals might prefer the bird-slaughtering eyesores of 300 square miles of unreliable wind power, the amount needed to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity. But when
n FREEDOM MATTERS
The roots of environmentalists' opposition to nuclear power The most climate-friendly reliable source of power is nuclear energy, yet environmental activists largely campaign against nuclear. Environmental Progress President Michael Shellenberger shares the fascinating history and motives of activists’ opposition in Public Utilities Fortnightly. Shellenberger writes: "Utilities that own nuclear power plants are in serious financial trouble. While it is tempting to blame low natural gas prices and misplaced post-Fukushima jitters, nuclear’s troubles are rooted in regulatory capture — a capture that finds its genesis in the origins of the U.S. environmental movement. This capture is now threatening to bring this climate-friendly energy source to the brink … How then did environmentalists come to view nuclear as bad for the environment? Starting in the mid-1960s, a handful of Sierra Club activists feared rising migration into California would destroy the state’s scenic character. They decided to attack all sources of cheap, reliable power, not just nuclear, in order to slow economic growth. “If a doubling of the state’s population in the next 20 years is to be encouraged by providing the power resources for this growth,” wrote David Brower, who was executive director of the Sierra Club, “the state’s
scenic character will be destroyed. More power plants create more industry, that in turn invites greater population density.” A Sierra Club activist named Martin Litton, a pilot and nature photographer for Sunset magazine, led the campaign to oppose Diablo Canyon, a nuclear site Pacific Gas and Electric proposed to build on the central Californian coast in 1965. Sierra Club member “Martin Litton hated people,” wrote a historian about the how the environmental movement turned against nuclear. “He favored a drastic reduction in population to halt encroachment on park land.” But anti-nuclear activists had a problem: Their anti-growth message was deeply unpopular with the Californian people. And so they quickly changed their strategy. They worked hard instead to scare the public by preying on their ignorance. Doris Sloan, an anti-nuclear activist in northern California said, “If you’re trying to get people aroused about what is going on … you use the most emotional issue you can find.” This included publicizing images of victims of Hiroshima and photos of babies born with birth defects. Millions were convinced a nuclear meltdown was the same as a nuclear bomb.
How a Reactor Works
we have a safe, limitless supply of nuclear energy, why do so many people conspire against the idea? The answer, of course, is easily unraveled when you realize that liberals are never what they say or seem to be. What unifies them first, last and always isn’t the environment, race, pacifism, income inequality or abortion. It’s contempt for the basic institutions that made this country great and the heartfelt belief that it doesn’t deserve to prosper. “The radical environmentalists are insisting that the only energy alternative that will save the planet is wind and solar power — the two options guaranteed to most decelerate modern industrialization and economic progress across the globe,” wrote Stephen Moore in a 2018 piece for Investor’s Business Daily. “Perhaps that is what the far Left really wants — to force mankind to slow down growth and human advancement. If that is their real agenda, then forcing businesses and families to use inferior and expensive energy is a smart strategy.”
No one recognizes the movement for what it has become with more specificity that Patrick Moore. A lifelong devotee of environmental causes and a passionate, objective scientist, Moore was among the founders of the radical group Greenpeace in the 1980s. These days, however, he’s turned against the organization and its leadership. But not because he or his values have changed. According to Moore, the political Left “hijacked a considerable portion of the environmental movement back in the mid-’80s and … have become very clever at using green language to cloak campaigns that have more to do with anti-industrialism, antiglobalization, anticorporate, all of those things which are basically political campaigns.” The left’s reoccupation of environmentalism is hardly accidental. According to Columbia University Professor of History Adam Tooze, it is “driven by the urgency of anti-capitalist protest in the wake of the financial crisis and the protest movement against the lopsided austerity that followed. It is energized by the extraordinary escalation of
the climate crisis, as was made clear by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2018. A leftwing critique of capitalism and urgent climate activism are linked as never before.” They are linked, in other words, less because of scientific fact than out of practical and political mutuality of purpose. Environmental extremists cannot conceive of a world in which economic growth and Mother Nature can coexist. And as far as anticapitalists are concerned, anything that stifles progress and affluence is worth doing for its own sake. If these activities can be cloaked in a benign-sounding affectation of concern for fresh air and clean water, their credibility will only be enhanced in certain circles. Which brings us back to the conundrum of nuclear energy. In fact, where liberals are concerned, there is no inconstency at all. Like so many other ideas that would surely strengthen and improve the country, they don't reject nuclear energy because it might not work. They reject is because they're terrified it will.ecurity money can FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 37
ACTIONTIMELINE ACTION TIMELINE Highlighting a few of the Freedom Foundation’s signature accomplishments over the past half year
DEC. 4 The Freedom Foundation appeals to the Washington State Supreme Court a lawsuit it filed against the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) for demonstrating political bias in favor of a union front group that failed to register as a political action committee. DEC. 8 The Freedom Foundation files suits in close to a dozen cases in Washington, Oregon and California in which a union operative has falsified the signature of a disgruntled public employee on a membership form to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right to decline union participation. On Dec. 8, the organization appeals a pair of lawsuits from Oregon — Cash Schiewe v. SEIU 503 and Wright v. SEIU 503 — marking the second and third cases it has brought to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. DEC. 9 Freedom Foundation National Director Aaron Withe has an op-ed published by the Daily Wire noting President-Elect Joe Biden’s long history of subservience to labor unions, addressing areas where he will undoubtedly try to roll back important labor reforms and warning readers to remain vigilant. DEC. 17 Freedom Foundation Labor Policy Director Maxford Nelsen appears on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show to report that, for the second time in six months, the organization has PAGE 38
n FREEDOM MATTERS
released a report intimating that the Washington State Department of Health is very likely inflating the number of state residents who have died of COVID. DEC. 22 The Epoch Times publishes an article highlighting Freedom Foundation research demonstrating that Washington State Health Department officials were inflating the number of COVID-19 deaths in the state by classifying anyone who had ever contracted the virus and eventually died — regardless of the cause — as a COVID victim. JAN. 13 Both RedState.com and The Daily Wire publish articles authored by Freedom Foundation National Director Aaron Withe warning that Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, nominated by President-elect Joe Biden to serve as Secretary of Labor, is little more than a union stooge — thus fulfilling Biden’s dubious campaign pledge to make his the most union-friendly administration in history. 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 is made during a two-week window every year.
BY THE NUMBERS Nationally: In the month of June alone, the Freedom Foundation generated more than 1.8 million e-mails and 250,000 mailers. In New Mexico, the first time the organization reached out to members of a small AFSCME local, more than 200 members opted out. In total, one out of every four employees who interacted with the e-mail ceased their dues deduction. New Mexico is one of the first lists targeted as part of the Freedom Foundation’s national outreach plan. Oregon: Federal reports show SEIU 503 lost another 2,100 dues-paying members from its overall ranks in 2020 – the fourth year in a row the union’s membership has declined, and a 26 percent overall decline since Janus. Meanwhile, the most recent payroll data from the state of Oregon show that, as of September 2020, 34 percent of SEIU 503 represented state employees are no longer paying dues. Pennsylvania:Ohio: As Pennsylvania continues to grow its operations, the Freedom Foundation saw its biggest opt-out numbers come from a holiday theme piece that ran over Christmas and into the new year. More than 200 union members opted out after that single piece of material hit their mailboxes. Ohio: Payroll data obtained from the state of Ohio show that, since the Freedom Foundation’s move into the state, the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association has lost nearly 1,500 dues-paying members.
Leave a legacy of freedom
FEB. 11 The Washington Times publishes a story about the Freedom Foundation’s appeal of Belgau v. Inslee on its front page. 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. 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. MARCH 1 The Freedom Foundation submits an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas Moore Law Center challenging efforts by the California state attorney general to force all charitable organizations operating in the state to turn over the names and addresses of their top financial contributors. MARCH 12 An op-ed authored by Freedom Foundation Labor Policy Director Maxford Nelsen is published by the Wall Street Journal. Headlined, “Unions and Democrats attack the
The wealth of our country exists in large part in the savings and hard-earned assets of good people who have endured, sacrificed and succeeded. It is their legacy that stands poised to be transferred to the next generation. Will these funds be a windfall profit for government programs, new capital for center-left organizations? Or will they be a responsible transfer of values held dear by the good people who earned the money? Join the fight against the tyranny of the government unions. Become a member of the Freedom Foundation today. Donate online at www.freedomfoundation.com For information on how to become a member of our Legacy Society, contact www.freedomfoundation/legacy
right to work,” the piece spotlights the so-called PRO Act, passed earlier in the week by the U.S. House of Representatives, as little more than a payback to the unions that pumped millions into Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. MARCH 16 The Freedom Foundation files suit on behalf of Glenn Laird, a longtime California teacher who broke ranks with his union when it included defunding law enforcement among its demands in return for returning to the classroom during the COVID outbreak. MARCH 18 The Freedom Foundation appeals Boardman v. Inslee to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves Initiative 1501, a union-financed ballot measure passed in 2016 by Washington state voters, that purported to toughen the state’s laws against identity thieves who prey on seniors and vulnerable individuals. In fact, the initiative’s real purpose was to exempt the contact information
for union-represented homecare providers from the public disclosure laws that apply to every other government employee, preventing fellow caregivers and organizations like the Freedom Foundation from informing them of their rights to leave the union without penalty. APRIL 15 The Freedom Foundation files a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of itself and client Joseph Johnson in Hoekman v. Education Minnesota, an important case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. In its brief, the Freedom Foundation argues that a deduction process that is entirely controlled by unions, which have a direct interest in seeing the money continue to flow no matter what, is inherently unconstitutional. APRIL 15 For the third time, the Freedom Foundation obtains a successful outcome for a Medicaid-compensated homecare provider whose signature was forged on a membership agreement so her union could continue deducting dues from her modest pay against her wishes. Maria Gatdula, a homebased caregiver in Washington, first attempted to opt out of SEIU 775 in 2019. The union, however, refused to honor her request, claiming she had signed an electronic membership agreement in October 2019 that required her to pay dues — and union-directed political contributions — until 2020. When it was determined the document had been forged, SEIU 775 grudgingly agreed to refund dues it had deducted illegally. FREEDOM MATTERS
n PAGE 39
Non-Profit Organization U.S Postage
PAID
Olympia, WA Permit No. 462
PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 (360) 956-3482