Feb. 2019 Living Liberty

L A S TRIKE TALKS L ACK TR ANSPARENCY [5] MY OPINION OF MY UNION HAS CHANGED [6] UNIONS TARGE TED IN PDC COMPL AINTS [9]

LIVINGLIBERTY A PUBLICATION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION | FEBRUARY 2019

CALLING SCOTUS STATE SUPREME COURT RULING IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE TO BE APPEALED

Electronic Service Requested

Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507

T

he Freedom Foundation has announced it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a 5-4 ruling issued against it on Jan. 10 by the Washington State Supreme Court over a campaign finance violation allegedly committed by the organization in 2014.

The lawsuit stems from efforts by citizen activists in Sequim, Chelan and Shelton to place union reform initiatives on their local election ballot.

Based on model policies developed by the Freedom Foundation, the measures would have required city governments to open their collective bargaining negotiations with unions representing city employees to public observation and permit city employees to choose for themselves whether to financially support a union.

By all accounts, the local activists followed state laws to the letter and submitted the proper number of signed petitions; nonetheless, the city councils in each community refused to send the measures on to the voters.

The initiative backers responded by filing suit, with the Freedom Foundation providing pro bono legal representation.

The suit was unsuccessful but, in 2015, a group of political operatives calling

By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor

themselves the “Committee for Transparency in Elections” filed a complaint with the Washington Attorney General’s Office alleging, among other charges, that the Freedom Foundation should have reported to the Public Disclosure Commission the value of the legal services it provided to the citizen activists.

The committee, formed for the sole purpose of filing the complaint, was funded by $1,000 contributions each from SEIU Local 775’s political committee and the SEIU Washington State Council’s political committee.

The Washington State Attorney General’s Office in October 2015 concluded “(T)he majority of the allegations did not constitute violations of state law,” but filed suit against the Freedom Foundation for not reporting the value of its attorneys’ time to the PDC. In May 2016, a Thurston County Superior Court judge ruled against the state, finding the law to be “ambiguous and vague.”

The AG’s Office filed an appeal and, in November 2017, the lower court’s ruling was reversed.

The Freedom Foundation then appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court, which on Jan. 10 sided with the AG. “From the start, this case has been 100 percent politically motivated,” said Freedom Foundation CEO Tom McCabe. “The unions pressured (Attorney General) Bob Ferguson to file a lawsuit in retaliation for the numerous examples the Freedom Foundation has uncovered of the unions deliberately concealing millions of dollars in campaign contributions. And Ferguson, the recipient of tens of thousands of dollars See APPEAL Page 10

VOLUME 30 | ISSUE 2

[2]

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CAT I ON OF T HE FREED OM FOU NDATION

CONTENTS

Our mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.

PAGE 4

PAGE 3

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

LEADERSHIP MEMO Publisher: Tom McCabe Editor: Jeff Rhodes

CONTACT Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507

(360) 956-3482 FreedomFoundation.com

“Quote” ~ of the month ~

By WALTER HATCH Reprinted from CROSSCUT Why Conservative Think Tanks Thrive in Liberal Washington.

By TOM McCABE When Trying to Judge Which Side is Anti-Worker, Judge Us

by Our Actions, Not Their Words.

PAGE 5

DEBATING FREEDOM

By BOB WICKERS & SAMUEL COLEMAN Reprinted from the LOS ANGELES TIMES

LA Teachers’ Strike Negotiations Could Do With a Healthy Dose of Transparency.

What They Said & What They Meant PAGES 6-7 A Half-Year Has Passed Since the Landmark Right-to-Work Ruling Was Issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Union Membership Ever Since Has Been Plummeting ... No Matter What They May Tell You.

JANUS PLUS-6

.

PAGE 8

OREGON UPDATE

By AARON WITHE

LEE SAUNDERS President, American Federation of State, Municipal & County Employees (AFSCME) Op-ed in The American Prospect, July 9, 2018

“The (Janus) decision is a setback not just for public-service workers, but for all workers ... and perhaps for democracy itself. The decision will take its place alongside other misguided and overtly political Roberts Court decisions to diminish workers’ rights and elevate corporate interests.”

Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the election of any elected official or candidate.

In Oregon, It’s More Like Government of the Union and By the Union.

By ETHAN ALT My Opinion of My Union Has Changed.

Now I Want Out.

PAGE 9

BEST OF THE BLOG

PAGE 10

FREEDOM IN ACTION

By MATTHEW HAYWARD Reprinted from the SPOKESMAN REVIEW

By MAXFORD NELSEN Freedom Foundation Alleges Two New Union Campaign Disclosure Violations.

Freedom Foundation’s Friends, Foes Weigh in On Our Actions.

PAGE 11

FREEDOM IN THE NEWS

Spokane County Setting an Example for the Rest of the State When It Comes to Union Negotiations.

Reprinted from the RED STATE

Freedom Foundation Helps 40,000 Public Employees Escape Unions.

PAGE 12

ACTION TIMELINE

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

3

WHEN TRYING TO DECIDE WHICH SIDE IS REALLY ANTI-WORKER, JUDGE

OUR ACTIONS, NOT THEIR WORDS

I

ddid a Google search recently on the phrase “anti-union Freedom Foundation.”

It got 2,360 hits.

Mind you, that number just refers to instances where the phrase is published verbatim. If you want to track every case in which “Freedom Foundation” is associated with phrases like “anti-union,” union-busting,” “union foe,” etc., the total would run into the tens of thousands.

Clearly, we’ve cut a wide swath through organized labor in general and government employee unions in particular, and I’m not complaining. The Freedom Foundation was founded to advance free markets and limited, accountable government, and because the unions are the single largest impediment to those objectives, we have to take them on.

And I don’t mean with position papers and dirty looks, either.

Around here it isn’t enough to point out union abuses and hope someone else fixes them. At the Freedom Foundation, we roll up our sleeves and get dirt under our fingernails.

To public-sector union bosses all over the country, the Freedom Foundation represents an existential threat. Consequently, they feel obliged to make up lies about us — for example, our being anti-union.

In fact, we’re not. Make no mistake, the Freedom Foundation is completely opposed to what unions have become, but that’s not the same thing as being opposed to the basic concepts of organized labor and collective bargaining.

As you may have noticed, the first word in Freedom Foundation is “freedom.” As such, it would be hypocritical of us to support anything that denies workers the opportunity to affiliate with one another, discuss work-related grievances or speak with one voice in contract negotiations.

But, of course, that’s not all unions do.

Modern public-sector unions also force their workers to strike, for example, even though in states like Washington such walkouts are illegal. Like most folks, we think laws apply to everyone — no matter how many palms you’ve greased with someone else’s money.

Speaking of which, unions have also become the most profligate special interest in politics, bankrolling a radically liberal agenda whose aims include growing the size of government and its influence over your lifestyle and wallet while stubbornly resisting any attempt to make its workings more transparent.

Given the Freedom Foundation’s previously stated commitment to “free markets and open, accountable government,” we feel like we’re on pretty firm logical ground calling attention to this aspect of the unions’ activities, too.

What really chaps our hide, though, is the idea of workers being told they either have to share their paycheck with a union whose values they may loathe or be fired.

Like I said, we take this freedom stuff pretty seriously, and in a free society, no one has the right to infringe on your First Amendment rights of speech and association — partic-

ularly when they’re using the booty from their shakedown to corrupt

By TOM McCABE, CEO politicians who pass laws ensuring more of the same.

Many decades ago, labor unions served a valuable purpose, when private-sector employers’ power was virtually unchecked and workplace conditions were often appalling.

Most of those oversight functions, however, were eventually assumed by government agencies like OSHA, the EPA, the Humans Rights Commission and hundreds of others that regulate American business.

As the role of private-sector unions dwindled over the years, so did the number of workers willing to pay dues for services they no longer needed, and union membership dropped steadily. The exception to the rule was public-sector unions — which were never necessary to begin with.

With government at every level continuing to balloon through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, each new employee added was another check to be cashed by the union — literally, since until very recently, the workers were forced to either join up and pay dues or “opt out” while still paying a representation fee almost as hefty as normal dues were.

It was like printing money — right up until the day the Freedom Foundation started informing government employees about their rights under Harris v. Quinn (and later, Janus v. AFSCME) to pay the unions nothing at all.

So let’s review.

From the unions’ perspective, informing free Americans about their legal rights is anti-union. Conversely, it’s pro-union to suppress or lie to workers about their rights — which they do routinely.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the union position, is it?

In fact, the only way to be pro-union is to be anti-worker.

That is, unless you believe it’s in the worker’s interest to have his or her own money spent insulating them from the truth.

And convoluted though it may sound, that’s precisely the argument union leaders do make, which goes a long way toward explaining why — in the aftermath of Janus and with a sizeable assist from the Freedom Foundation — even government employees these days are leaving their unions in droves.

Ultimately, you see, it isn’t up to the unions or the Freedom Foundation to say which side is really “anti-union.”

It’s up the workers. And apparently they know it when they see it.

LEADERSHIP

MEMO

LIVING LIBERTY

“

From the unions’ perspective, informing free Americans about their legal rights is antiunion.

”

D O S O M E T H I N G F O R F R E E D O M T O D AY

SUPPORT THE FIGHT!

The Freedom Foundation is the only organization on the West Coast that

takes on the hard fights. Every day we stand up to ensure freedom for future generations. Every gift is an investment in the future.

COMPLETE AND MAIL THE REPLY ENVELOPE

4

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM WHY CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS THRIVE IN LIBERAL WASHINGTON

By WALTER HATCH

Reprinted from CROSSCUT DEC 4, 2018

I

n a relatively progressive state like Washington, you might expect liberal think tanks to completely dominate the field of nongovernmental policy research and advocacy.

But you would be wrong: Conservative groups wield significant clout.

Consider Washington Policy Center, a right-wing think tank backing “free market solutions.”

It played a prominent role in the successful campaign against Initiative 1631, the carbon tax proposal on November’s ballot.

If you tried to learn about this issue by surfing the web, watching news broadcasts or reading local newspapers, you probably encountered Todd Myers, the center’s environmental director, a former state Republican communications director and a policy expert at the Koch-backed, climate-skeptical Heartland Institute.

He routinely panned the initiative.

Likewise, the Discovery Institute, best known for its work advancing the concept of “intelligent design,” opposed a Seattle “head tax” to fund projects for the homeless.

One of the institute’s fellows, Chris Rufo, a local filmmaker who launched a now-aborted campaign for Mike O’Brien’s seat on the Seattle City Council, argued passionately against the “homeless industrial complex” and “the politics of ruinous compassion.”

Finally, Freedom Foundation, another conservative think tank, is pushing hard to undermine government unions in Washington, Oregon and California by advising public employees that they are no longer required to pay dues.

“We have diminished government-union power while providing union members a shelter from union bullies,” Tom McCabe, leader of the foundation, wrote in a 2014 email to supporters. “We have implemented a plan to bankrupt SEIU, our state’s largest union.”

Of course, Washington does host a number of progressive think tanks — from Sightline to the Washington State Budget and Policy Center and the Economic Opportunity Institute (EOI). And these groups have enjoyed their own successes in recent years, advocating for democracy vouchers for Seattle voters, paid family and sick leave for Washington workers, and a higher minimum wage.

John Burbank, executive director of EOI, says his organization has been remarkably effective despite “challenging the status quo” to promote public policies that help the poor and middle class in Washington.

Yet conservative organizations enjoy surprising influence in a state that has not elected a Republican governor in nearly four decades.

This may simply reflect a big advantage in funding and people power.

Federal records and annual reports show that the three progressive think tanks I mentioned had, in 2016 or 2017, a total of $4.8 million in annual revenues and 38 staffers.

One of them, EOI, had to scratch its way back to liquidity after nearly bankrupting itself in the unsuccessful 2003 campaign for a “latte tax” to subsidize childcare for the poor in Seattle.

By contrast, the three conservative think tanks I mentioned were, in the aggregate,

almost three times richer ($13.2 million) and twice as big (77 staffers).

Some of the reasons for this discrepancy are obvious, and not unique to Washington.

For example, corporate executives tend to be conservative, and quite willing to underwrite policy research that advances their interests.

By contrast, union leaders now find themselves on the defensive. In addition, conservatives have been especially dedicated to building up a network of ideologically motivated think tanks around the country.

This may date back to 1971, when Lewis Powell, before becoming a Supreme Court justice, wrote a confidential memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce condemning “the (Ralph) Naders, the (Herbert) Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the (capitalist) system.”

He saved much of his venom for American colleges and universities, which he and other conservatives viewed, even then, as bastions of leftist thinking.

In the end, Powell called on business leaders to mount a concerted campaign of education and advocacy, to “apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the (capitalist) system.”

Within a decade, well-endowed rightwing think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Heritage Foundation had joined the ranks of more technocratic organizations such as Brookings, Rand and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Meanwhile, liberal intellectuals flocked to academia, writing increasingly abstract, technical or jargon-filled pieces for other academics.

In 1987, Russell Jacoby lamented this tendency in “The Last Intellectuals,’’ describing the world of social science as a fiefdom that had become more and more isolated from the public.

A year later, President Reagan came to a similar conclusion from the opposite perspective: “Today, the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks — and none has been more influential than (AEI).”

The national trend soon found its way to Washington. Bruce Chapman, a former GOP state official who became Reagan’s national census director, helped launch Discovery Institute in 1991.

It now has offices in Seattle, Washington, D.C., and Dallas.

Bob Williams, a conservative Christian and Republican nominee for governor, also founded the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (reborn as the Freedom Foundation) in 1991.

It now operates out of Olympia; Salem, Ore.; and Fullerton, Calif.

The Washington Policy Center, based in Seattle, Olympia, Spokane and the Tri-Cities, was born in 1997.

Like the Freedom Foundation, it is affiliated with the State Policy Network, a set of conservative think tanks financed in part by Charles and David Koch. It also is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a business-backed organization that writes bills for Republican legislators.

With the exception of Sightline, founded

in 1993, progressive think tanks in Washington emerged later.

These groups have struggled to raise money for an additional reason that is, in part, peculiar to our region: Many wealthy liberals in the Northwest have chosen not to invest so heavily in independent think tanks.

Some, most notably Nick Hanauer, would rather control their own policy research and advocacy.

The billionaire venture capitalist has launched his own think tanks — True Patriot Network, which eventually became Civic Ventures.

He and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen joined forces to create the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, investing $1 million each into the successful Initiative 1639 campaign for new gun regulations in Washington.

Others have used their billions primarily for charity. Howard Schultz, longtime leader of Starbucks, set up a foundation to support veterans and youth all over the country.

Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, underwrites global health and development initiatives, as well some Northwest projects, including local education efforts.

Seattle’s most controversial billionaire is probably more liberal, at least in his social views, than many donors nationally, but — until recently — has not shown much interest in politics or policy.

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and currently the world’s richest human, has chosen to invest much of his money in ventures like space tourism and the Washington Post.

What about mere millionaires who lean left? Some have preferred to pour their earnings directly into politics. Stephanie DeVaan, who spent five years at a rapidly expanding Microsoft, launched a political action committee (Washington Women for Choice) to support candidates committed to abortion rights.

The current chair of the state Democratic Party, Tina Podlodowski, who stayed a bit longer at Microsoft, invested heavily in LGBT rights (especially the Pride Foundation) and political campaigns, including her own for Seattle City Council and Washington secretary of state.

This is not to say that wealthy liberals have completely turned their backs on progressive think tanks in Washington.

Indeed, some of those mentioned here have been contributors.

But they have not stepped forward to serve as audacious patrons in the way that Charles and David Koch or Lynde and Harry Bradley have for conservative think tanks.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

DEBATING FREEDOM LA STRIKE TALKS IN DESPERATE NEED OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY

5

What They

&

What They

By BOB WICKERS & SAME COLEMAN

What she said: “(The Freedom Foundation isn’t) about freedom. They’re about captivity in the past”

Reprinted from the LOS ANGELES TIMES Jan. 17, 2019

F

or nearly 22 months, United Teachers Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District have been negotiating behind closed doors.

And what is there to show for their bargaining?

More than 30,000 teachers have walked out of classrooms and are striking for the first time in three decades, disrupting the education of more than half a million K-12 students and the lives of their families.

Moreover, it’s difficult for the public to know how the strike came about. Was UTLA being unreasonable? Was LAUSD? Does the union’s decision to strike have less to do with increasing teacher pay and more to do with opposing nonunion charter schools? Should LAUSD’s claim of budget constraints during a strong economy be taken at face value?

These are legitimate questions that none of us can answer. Even though taxpayers will have to fund whatever agreement is ultimately reached, the public knows virtually nothing about the proceedings. They won’t see any details until a final contract is approved, and they will likely never know about the offers and counteroffers along the way.

Transparency in negotiations involving public employee unions is prohibited by law in California, which means voters never know how public officials are performing one of their most important jobs.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Many states and municipalities have ordinances mandating transparency in collective bargaining. Proposals, counterproposals and independent analyses are posted publicly. and negotiations are livestreamed.

This kind of openness encourages adult behavior, good faith and compromise, and it can help avoid disruptive walkouts like the one we’re seeing now in Los Angeles.

There was a time in California when transparency wasn’t barred by statute, however, and a number of cities adopted socalled COIN laws, which stands for Civic Openness in Negotiations.

In 2012, Costa Mesa was the first to adopt such a law, and Orange County, Beverly Hills, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Pacific Palisades and Rancho

Palos Verdes soon followed.

This newspaper editorialized in favor of Los Angeles adopting its own transparency law after witnessing politicians signing off on city employee pay raises and other benefits “with little public vetting of the contracts or debate over the costs and long-term budget impact.”

But it wasn’t to be. Seeing COIN as a growing threat to their ability to negotiate favorable contracts, government unions pressured their friends in Sacramento to shut it down.

In 2015, the California Legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, a bill by thenSen. Tony Mendoza that barred municipalities from adopting COIN laws.

Mendoza, a former teacher and member of UTLA, received more than $486,000 in campaign contributions from unions between 2014 and his resignation from the California Senate in 2018 amid sexual misconduct allegations.

The law was a huge loss to California taxpayers. Scott Carpenter, who served as policy analyst for the Orange County Board of Supervisors during COIN’s brief tenure, said that he closely watched Costa Mesa’s open bargaining process and that it worked exactly the way it was intended. During the city’s negotiations with the Costa Mesa City Employees Assn., he said, all bargaining offers were submitted for public review, something he credits with reducing the number of unreasonable demands and public accusations of bad faith. A timely agreement was reached without even the threat of a strike.

Our experience at the Freedom Foundation in successfully advocating for open bargaining across the nation has convinced us that good laws should mandate at least three things:

rapid posting of all proposals and counterproposals during negotiations, publicly available independent fiscal analysis and a way for people to witness the proceedings, either through live streaming or open meetings.

Opponents of bargaining transparency — especially government unions — say that opening up negotiations would hinder the ability for candid bargaining, threaten employee privacy and increase the risk of sensitive information being leaked.

But in our opinion, government employers and government unions shouldn’t be saying things in private they wouldn’t say in public. Regarding privacy, bargaining takes place on behalf of a bargaining unit, not an individual worker, so private information about individuals isn’t discussed during negotiations.

The bottom line is, taxpayers pay the salaries of public workers and therefore have a direct and compelling interest in the bargaining process. They deserve transparency.

Thirteen states, including Florida and Colorado, agree, requiring significant transparency in collective bargaining. Nine additional states allow for at least some kind of public access to negotiations.

The Freedom Foundation believes openness in collective bargaining is critical to California’s future, too.

Had an open bargaining ordinance already been on the books, Los Angeles’ students and teachers might well be in their classrooms today — where they belong — instead of at home or on the picket line.

Bob Wickers is vice president of operations and Sam Coleman is California outreach director of the Freedom Foundation, a national organization working to promote liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government.

What she meant: “As opposed to public-sector labor unions, whose deep ELAINE TORREY commitment Federal Way, Wash. to the ideal of YouTube post Jan. 8, 2018. freedom is characterized by their longstanding demand that every government worker be represented by a union or be fired. By my convoluted reasoning, workers are only ‘free’ when they have one choice ... the one I give them.” n n n

She said: “...They are right here in Oregon trying to get people to unjoin unions. The rightwing local radio hosts here in Salem give the Freedom Foundation free publicity and AILEEN KAYE tout their Salem, Ore. despicable Facebook post, cause.”

Dec. 14, 2018 She meant: “Can you imagine? A viewpoint other than mine being aired by the media? I thought they were only allowed to talk about my despicable cause ... union lies.” n n n

He said: “The Freedom Foundation is a criminal enterprise.”

He meant: “Or least it would be if I had my way. What kind of country is this when people are ROBERT CLEAVENGER allowed to SeaTac, Wash. run around Facebook post, informing Dec. 9, 2018 people about their Constitutional rights?

Next thing you know, they might actually start exercising those rights. Then where will we be? In my concept of a perfect world, everyone could only do what’s best for me and the agenda I support. And if they don’t, they should be sent to the gulag.”

JANUS PLUS-6 Half a year has passed since the landmark right-to-work ruling was issued, and union membership is cratering ... no matter what they tell you

S

tate payroll data obtained by the Freedom Foundation from the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) indicate a quarter of the state’s individual provider home care aides (IPs) had no union dues withheld from their wages in October 2018, the highest percentage since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Harris v. Quinn made dues payment optional for these “partial-public employees.”

The union representing IPs, SEIU Local 775, has fought hard against complying with Harris and has relied on a host of schemes to prevent IPs from learning about and exercising their constitutional rights.

One of the more flagrant tactics involved having the state seize full union dues — amounting to 3.2 percent of wages — from IPs’ paychecks by default.

Caregivers had to affirmatively object in writing for the automatic deductions to cease.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 27, 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME held that it is unconstitutional for public employers to collect union dues from an employees’ pay without prior authorization, the Freedom Foundation in July filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Gov. Jay Inslee, DSHS and SEIU 775 for violating IPs’ First Amendment rights with the automatic dues deductions.

By August, the state and union had ended the practice.

At the time, the Freedom Foundation estimated ending the automatic deduction scheme would benefit about 6,000 IPs. This turned out to be spot on.

In May 2018, according to DSHS data, 4,248 IPs had no union dues deducted from their wages, representing 10.7 percent of the IP population.

The most recent DSHS data provided to the Freedom Foundation for October 2018 show 10,291 IPs no longer had SEIU 775 deductions from their pay, accounting for 24.5 percent of the bargaining unit.

Though it took four years, the decline is a big change for a union that bragged shortly after Harris that, “Less than one half of one percent of caregivers have chosen to give up their rights and withdraw from membership.”

But the end of the automatic deduction scheme still does not provide an accurate picture of SEIU 775’s level of support among IPs. The IP workforce has expanded significantly in recent years and has generally high turnover. Because of the passage of SEIU-backed Initiative 1501 in 2016, the Freedom Foundation has been unable to contact thousands of IPs to inform them of their rights.

Meanwhile, SEIU 775 and DSHS continue to provide inaccurate and misleading information to caregivers at mandatory orientations and trainings and continue to pressure IPs into signing up for union membership.

Once signed, the terms of union membership forms continue to lock IPs into paying dues for at least one year and only allow them to cancel the dues deductions from their wages

STATES THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION HAS RECEIVED OPT-OUT INQUIRIES FROM

By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director

during an arbitrary annual 15-day escape period.

The Freedom Foundation is challenging both I-1501 and the validity of SEIU 775’s membership forms in federal court.

Just like SEIU 775 did after Harris, government unions representing traditional public employees are downplaying membership losses they’ve experienced since Janus.

A recent article in Governing magazine entitled, “Defying Predictions, Union Membership Isn’t Dropping Post-Janus,” quoted several union officials who claimed their unions have actually gained members since the court’s decision made dues payment voluntary.

While it’s difficult to judge the accuracy of these claims nationwide before better information is available, it clearly isn’t the case for at least some major unions.

The Freedom Foundation reported in October 2018 how 20 percent of state agency employees represented by the Washington Federation of State Employees were no longer paying any dues or fees, according to state payroll data.

And as government unions are employing many of the same tactics pioneered by SEIU in its response to Harris, it will probably take several years to equip public employees with the information they need to make informed choices about union membership and to finish the long process of ending union workarounds in court.

In short, whether government union leaders remain so optimistic four years from now remains to be seen.

Regardless, the ability of public employees to finally make their own choices about union membership is long overdue and will, over time, result in unions having to pay more attention to staying in tune with their membership.

OREGON BILL WOULD LET STATE FUND UNIONS ITSELF What the Left hopes can be a Janus workaround clearly contradicts the whole intent of the ruling.

A

merica’s government employee unions are spending a great deal of time and effort these days earnestly assuring anyone willing to listen their membership rolls haven’t taken a hit since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark right-to-work ruling last June in Janus v.

AFSCME. But hard numbers say otherwise. In fact, more than 40,000 former union members have defected in just the Pacific Northwest during the past six months alone. Which probably explains why they’ve hatched a preposterous scheme in reliably liberal Oregon to let the law take over where their words fall short.

House Bill 2643, authored by Rep. Paul Holvey (D-Eugene) and scheduled to be introduced during the legislative session beginning later this month, is a shot across the bow of Janus, which banned the socalled “agency” fees government employees who successfully opted out of full union participation were still required to pay in lieu of dues.

The measure would replace Oregon’s existing agency fee laws by creating a slush fund from which state and local government would pay the equivalent of each employee’s monthly dues directly to the union.

While Janus stops governments from requiring employees to make payments to unions out of their own pockets, HR-2643 proponents insist it doesn’t prevent state and local governments from supporting unions instead.

Rather than paying a state employee a salary of $50,000, for example, from which $1,000 in agency fees would be deducted, the bill proposes to simply rejigger the arrangement on paper so that the employee’s revised salary is $49,000, with the state diverting the remaining $1,000 to the union itself.

The concept can trace its roots back to at least 2015, when a pair of leftist law professors — correctly anticipating an anti-union outcome in Janus — authored a law review article that hypothesized a radical restructuring of government/union relationships in order to exploit a perceived loophole in the ruling.

Union leaders and the leftist politicians they corrupt with someone

By AARON WITHE, Oregon Director

&

By ASHLEY VARNER, VP for COMMUNICATIONS

else’s dues money are hopeful the legislative Frankenstein’s monster currently on the drawing board in Oregon can be reanimated in other states, too.

Their theory, however, has any number of legal and logical holes in it.

For starters, it envisions an impossibly unworkable arrangement in which the government represents both labor and management in collective bargaining negotiations — a prospect that makes even some union officials queasy.

More fundamentally, though, it completely disregards the court’s clear intent in Janus.

Confiscating a portion of a government employee’s wages and spending it on partisan political activities they may not support is a clear violation of his or her First Amendment right to free speech. That principle has been undisputed since the court’s 1977 ruling in Abood v.

Detroit Board of Education.

But Janus went even further, recognizing that in the public sector, everything a union does — including collective bargaining — is inherently political because paying for it requires either raising taxes or cutting services.

Consequently, government employees can’t be compelled to pay for any of it.

Under HB-2643, the unions and their cronies in elective office propose getting around this thorny problem by simply cutting the middle man — the employee — out of the equation and using the money set aside for his or her salary to subsidize the union’s political agenda directly.

The whole point of Janus was to safeguard the right government employees to decide for themselves which political causes and candidates to support — if any — with their hard-earned dollars. HB-2643 is a brazen attempt to seize that right and hand it back to a greedy, unscrupulous special interest.

It was bad enough when unions were allowed to take money from people who didn’t want to give it and spend it on partisan political activities they didn’t support. If this bill is passed, the government will simply be doing the union’s dirty work for it.

8

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON

OREGON GOVERNMENT BY AND FOR UNIONS

F

or more than 30 years in Oregon, the governor’s seat has been filed with somebody with (D) next to their name. But even that isn’t enough to secure you the job.

You also have to suck up to the state’s public-sector unions.

Last November’s gubernatorial election is a prime example. In a record year, GOP hopeful Knute Buehler, with the support of NIKE CEO Phil Knight, most of the business community and Republican party PACs, raised more than $18.8 million.

Meanwhile, incumbent Democrat Kate Brown raised $18.6 million, and the media noted some of her more prominent donors included Democratic PACs and Emily’s List.

Most, however, failed to disclose the largest special interest to fund not only her campaign but also most liberal candidates around the state — government employee unions.

Unions representing public-sector

By AARON WITHE, Oregon Director

workers spent more than $3.3 million to ensure Gov. Brown’s victory, not including the additional money they funneled through other various PAC’s.

But Brown’s race was only a part of their broader political agenda this election cycle.

The unions also spent millions to ensure super-majorities in the Oregon State Senate and House of Representatives.

What does this mean for this next legislative session? Quid pro quo.

Elected officials who owe their office to union money will be more than willing to return the favor by passing any bill their benefactors support — regardless of whether it’s in the best interests of the people.

And it seldom is.

Unlike private-sector businesses,

Oregon Update

Highlighting the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.

which have to earn a profit to survive, government operations are funded by taxpayers like you.

When Oregon voters elect liberal, union-backed candidates, they’re actually voting for bigger government, crippling taxes, less transparency and intrusive regulations.

By extension, they’re also voting for lower employment, reduced wages and a continued exodus of the private-sector businesses we count on to create the wealth government consumes.

Not that the unions care. For their perspective, bigger government means more public employees. Which, in turn, means more dues-paying members and more money with which continue corrupting politicians to keep the whole cycle revolving.

Cue Kate Brown.

Her election success has been bought and paid for by government unions that reap the benefits of the additional taxes her policies devour.

This past election showed us that even with the significant financial resources Knute Buehler generated, if you’re not supported by the unions, you’ll be matched at best, and usually outspent.

Which isn’t to say change isn’t coming.

Last June we witnessed one of the most consequential U.S. Supreme Court decisions in decades. The ruling in Janus v. AFSCME makes right-towork protections the law of the land and empowers public workers to abandon their union and stop paying union dues while still keeping their jobs.

Tens of thousands have already done so, and the opt-out movement is gaining momentum.

Absent their monopoly over the public labor force, unions will soon lose their monopoly over the state’s elected officials — resulting in government that represents Oregon’s people rather than its most avaricious special interest.

MY OPINION OF MY UNION HAS CHANGED. NOW I WANT OUT

By ETHAN ALT For Living Liberty

I

f you were to ask the average American what a union represents, most would say it stands for better working conditions, higher pay and, most importantly, its members.

Up until a few years ago, I would have probably agreed. But that was before I became a dues-paying member myself. Since then, I’ve been able to see firsthand exactly what the union’s role is in the modern workplace.

Vast bureaucracies stifled by groaning inefficiencies, slow response times and disinterested stewards are the hallmark of today’s unions.

My employer is one of Oregon’s largest (and most progressive) hospitals, a place where breaking from popular opinion will get you shunned by your peers and targeted by management.

Union sentiment runs especially deep here, particularly among young radicals and the economically illiterate. I’ve tried telling my co-workers just why I’m so dissatisfied with AFSCME (my local union).

It usually starts with me explaining to them how I disagree with much of the union’s political demagoguery, how I feel unheard and unrepresented and ends with me being called a fascist, or words to that effect.

Unfortunately, I’ve had to live with my discontent thanks to a federal law that required public employees to pay union dues whether or not they were actually members.

Enter Janus v. AFSCME, the ruling issued by the U.S. Supreme Court last June that completely upended the stranglehold unions had on public-sector employees and their paychecks.

The court’s decision basically said that forcing a public employee to pay dues even when he or she chooses not to be represented by that union is a form of compelled speech, and therefore unconstitutional.

Upon learning of this landmark decision and with the help of the Freedom Foundation, I promptly sent AFSCME my official letter of resignation.

Two weeks later, I received a reply from AFSCME Executive Director Stacy Chamberlain, or more likely, a team of her lawyers. She informed me that my membership would be canceled but my deductions would still continue.

Once again, I decided to contact the Freedom Foundation for help.

This time I was advised to contact the payroll and human resources departments directly to tell them I no longer approved of any unions dues or fees being taken from my checks.

To my relief, payroll responded immediately by honoring the request.

That was weeks ago. Then I received a new email last week, this time from the head of payroll, informing me that my request had been re-evaluated and was now denied.

Why? Supposedly only the union could cancel these payments.

According to the union I no longer belonged to, I really didn’t have much of a say in the matter. Naturally, I asked a handful of my coworkers if they had received the same kind of treatment.

Short answer — yes.

Word around the hospital is that our union is doubling down because its leaders fear a potential mass exodus and are willing to do just about anything to keep the money flowing.

To date, I’ve seen mid-level bureaucrats attempting to confuse union members with never-ending email strings, misinformation campaigns and the ever-present threat of reprisal to anyone who dares step out of line.

If you were to ask me today what public-sector unions represent, my answer would be vastly different than earlier. It’s perfectly clear to me now that more than anything else AFSCME only cares for itself.

Ethan Alt is a patient access specialist at Oregon Health and Science University.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

9

BEST OF THE BLOG “I was in my caregiver training class today and the union was just going totally crazy about what an extremist organization the Freedom Foundation is. So I spoke up and said, ‘That’s not true.’

FREEDOM FOUNDATION ALLEGES TWO NEW UNION PDC VIOLATIONS DECEMBER 20, 2018

T

he Freedom Foundation filed two complaints over the past few months with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleging a pair of labor unions have committed serious violations of the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), the state law governing election spending and disclosure.

UA Local 598 The first complaint, filed against the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 598 (UA 598) in November, targets the union’s practice of forcing its members to contribute to the union’s political action committee (PAC).

Though public employees can no longer be compelled to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, private-sector employees in Washington have no such protections.

Consequently, because UA 598’s members all work for private companies, they can be required to financially support the union.

Employees represented by UA 598 must sign “dispatch forms” authorizing their employer to withhold union dues from their wages.

The forms also authorize the employer to deduct 0.7 percent of the employee’s wages for UA 598’s PAC. Washington state law, however, protects employees’ right to make their own decisions about whether to make political contributions.

RCW 42.17A.495 provides: “(2) No employer or labor organization may discriminate against an officer or employee in the terms or conditions of employment for (a) the failure to contribute to, (b) the failure in any way to support or oppose, or (c) in any way supporting or opposing a candidate, ballot proposition, political party, or political committee. At least annually, an employee from whom wages or salary are withheld under subsection (3) of this section shall be notified of the provisions of this subsection.

(3) No employer or other person or entity responsible for the disbursement of funds in payment of wages or salaries may withhold or divert a portion of an employee’s wages or salaries for contributions to political committees or for use as political contributions except upon the written request of the employee. The request must be made on a form prescribed by the commission informing the employee of the prohibition against employer and labor organization discrimination described in subsection (2) of this section.

The employee may revoke the request at any time. At least annually, the employee shall be notified about the right to revoke the request.”

UA 598 and the employers with which it has a bargaining relationship do not appear to be

By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director

abiding by any of these requirements.

Employees are compelled to acquiesce to the PAC deductions since the dispatch forms they must sign provide no mechanism for the employees to object to or not authorize the deductions.

The forms do not contain state-mandated disclosures informing the employees of their right to not make such payments or their right to be free from discrimination for choosing to make or not make political contributions.

Employees are not permitted to determine the amount to contribute to the PAC, nor are they permitted to cancel the deductions at any time. Lastly, employees are not annually informed of their rights.

In short, UA 598 has for years operated an entirely illegal scheme to seize hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from employees’ wages to use advancing the union’s political agenda.

ATU Legislative Council Filed in December, the second complaint involves the Amalgamated Transit Union of Washington State (ATULC). Every ATU local in Washington state pays a certain “per capita tax” for every member it has to the ATULC which repeatedly describes its purpose as engaging in “political activity” and “promoting candidates.”

ATULC has no full-time staff and is simply a fund administered by ATU officials to engage in political activity in Washington state. Federal and state records indicate ATULC spends large percentages of its funds on direct political contributions.

Accordingly, ATULC meets the textbook definition of “political committee” and should therefore register as such with the PDC and disclose the contributions it receives and the expenditures it makes in compliance with state law.

However, ATULC has failed to file any disclosures of its activity with the PDC, depriving the public of important information related to the entity’s influence on Washington elections.

In both the UA 598 and ATULC cases, the PDC has 90 days to take action before the Freedom Foundation may begin the process of filing a citizen’s action lawsuit against the unions for their violations of state campaign finance laws.

The two complaints are the latest in a series of Freedom Foundation investigations into union political activity in Washington. In some cases, past investigations have resulted in the Attorney General’s office filing litigation against unions and certain nonprofit groups.

Many other cases have been ignored by the Attorney General and the PDC and are currently being litigated by the Freedom Foundation as citizens’ actions.

“I told everyone a lot of other things about the Freedom Foundation and was also able to hand out some of the opt-out forms to the IPs. Hopefully I’m not in trouble. If I am, oh well.

“I had a great day and the union guy did not want to deal with me.

It was like he just wanted to leave the room.”

— SHARI n

n

n

“II am attending a mandatory SEIU training class today which a union rep did their usual propaganda speech prior to the beginning of class. They took their entire time to bash the Freedom Foundation and did their best to inform all of us that your primary objective is to strip us of all our benefits and pay increases as you are only concerned with advancing the incomes of the wealthy, not the common worker.

“I had to ask if this is so then why did the union find it necessary to enact a law to make it mandatory for us to join the union so that they can legally continue to steal from my paycheck for “dues,” even when we’ve made it clear we choose not to support it and their twisted political agendas.

“She had no valid response. I did my best to support you and discount the lies she told regarding your efforts to protect all of our rights. I only wish that you are also given a platform to speak to the lies and deception perpetrated by this corrupt union. Most people are so deceived and don’t know the truth.

“Thank you for what you do to protect workers from this corrupt organization.”

— JULIE n

n

n

“I deeply appreciate your service.

I have printed out the letters of withdrawal from my union and will mail them out soon.

“I’m so tired of unaccountable unions that support leftist politicians more interested in creating constituents than serving the needs of my students.”

— HARRY

10

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON

FREEDOM IN ACTION SPOKANE COUNTY SETTING AN EXAMPLE FOR THE STATE ON UNION NEGOTIATIONS Reprinted from the SPOKESMAN REVIEW DEC. 23, 2018

T

he Spokane County Board of Commissioners earlier this month voted to approve a resolution opening the county’s collective bargaining negotiations with unions representing county employees to public observation.

In so doing, the commissioners adopted a forward-looking government transparency reform and set an example the rest of the state should follow.

Collective bargaining agreements negotiated by public employers and government unions determine the wages and benefits public employees receive.

They’re also policy documents that can have a significant effect on how government agencies operate and the services they provide.

Unlike in private industry, unions representing government employees negotiate with elected officials or their representatives.

This gives unions a big incentive to try and elect the officials that will sit opposite them at the bargaining table when negotiating over how to spend public funds.

Unfortunately, the Legislature in 1990 exempted these negotiations from the state’s Open Public Meetings Act, allowing – but not requiring – that they be conducted behind closed doors.

By MATTHEW HAYWARD, Outreach Director

Ever since, union members, taxpayers and the media have generally been excluded from observing the proceedings.

After years of unions blocking attempts to get the Washington Legislature to adopt collective bargaining transparency, Lincoln County’s Board of Commissioners in 2016, with Freedom Foundation assistance, became the first jurisdiction in Washington to allow the public to observe the process.

Several other local governments have since followed suit, including Kittitas and Ferry counties and the Pullman School District.

Spokane County is the largest public employer in the state to adopt collective bargaining transparency so far.

In some cases, the parties involved have adapted to the change. Open negotiations in the Pullman School District, for instance, reportedly went smoothly.

In Lincoln County, however, Teamsters Local 690 refused to negotiate publicly partway through the process, forcing the county to file an unfair labor practice complaint against the union with the Public Employment Relations Commission.

The union countered by filing its own complaint against the county.

However, the negotiator for the Teamsters told the state Senate’s Commerce, Labor and Sports Committee this year that “it wasn’t a stressful situation to bargain in the public,” though he still opposed the policy.

Hopefully Spokane’s unions do the right thing and embrace the more transparent process.

At least 13 other states, including both Oregon and Idaho, provide for a more open collective bargaining process than Washington does, and the sky hasn’t caved in.

In fact, some unions have pressed for open bargaining as a way to improve member participation and engagement.

Merrie Najimy, an official for the Concord Teachers Association in New Hampshire, explained in 2016 how her union had to fight the school board to open its negotiations and that doing so helped “bring our union back to life.”

Greater openness in negotiations ensures both sides behave reasonably and encourages them to reach agreement collaboratively, not confrontationally.

It lets interested parties – whether local taxpayers, public employees, or city hall reporters – reach their own conclusions about what’s happening in bargaining, rather than being kept in the dark or receiving two different narratives from the union and the government about what’s happening in negotiations.

Change is never easy, but Eastern Washington leaders have shown it’s possible to make government operate more transparently by enacting this commonsense reform. It’s a model the rest of the state would do well to emulate.

FREEDOM FOUNDATION HELPS FREE 40,00 FROM UNION BONDAGE Reprinted from RED STATE

JAN. 11, 2019

I

n June 2018, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for government employees to be forced to join a union, or have union “agency fees” deducted from their paychecks, in order to keep their job – overturning more than 40 years of union monopolies on government employment.

Today, state and local public employees can choose whether they want to join a union, and those who have previously been union members can now give themselves a raise by opting out of union membership and stop-

ping the automatic deduction of union dues from their paychecks.

The Freedom Foundation is focused on informing government employees of their First Amendment rights to free association – or non-association – and protecting their freedom of speech against forced monetary support of causes with which they disagree.

State and local governments do not necessarily inform their employees of this new right.

The unions certainly aren’t going to tell them – so that’s

what we do here at the Freedom Foundation: we use union tactics against the unions themselves to make sure people know they do not have to be a union member to have a government job.

Freedom Foundation operates on the Left Coast to weaken union strangleholds on our state and local policymakers: we send postcards and emails, make phone calls, and even visit government employees personally at their homes or workplaces with teams of canvassers across Oregon, Washington, and California. We also have a website for government employees across the country with information about how to opt out of their union: www.optouttoday.com.

The response we get from those we contact is overwhelmingly positive because people appreciate information, and they aren’t getting it anywhere else.

In just the six months since the Janus v. AFSCME decision in June 2018, the Freedom Foundation has helped more than 40,000 people leave their union or stop having agency fees deducted from their paychecks.

This means millions upon millions of dollars not going into union coffers.

The unions do not make it easy for anyone to free themselves of automatic paycheck deductions.

Sometimes it takes legal action, which Freedom Foundation embraces with gusto.

APPEAL: ‘AT ITS CORE, THIS IS A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE’ Continued From Page 1 in union money himself, happily complied.”

McCabe said the Freedom Foundation stands by its original assertion that there was no need to report its legal services as a campaign contribution when, in fact, the election in question never materialized.

More pointedly, the regulation the Freedom Foundation is alleged to have violated is so vaguely worded as to be meaningless.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor agreed, noting in the original court decision, “Unless there is clear and unambiguous guidance in the statutes, one

cannot be said to have violated laws that don’t exist.”

State Supreme Court Justice Gordon McLoud, writing for the dissenting justices, came to the same conclusion. He explained, “Because (the wording of the law) is ambiguous as applied to the circumstances of this case, the statute cannot be given effect in these circumstances. It is unconstitutionally vague as applied.”

In her majority opinion, however, Justice Barbara Madsen, wrote, “A statute’s language is sufficiently clear when it provides explicit standards for those who apply them and provides a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know

what is prohibited.”

“How you can argue that a person of normal intelligence can understand this law when you can’t even get all nine Supreme Court justices to agree on what it says?”

McCabe asked.

“At its core,” he said, “this is a First Amendment issue. By placing unreasonable restrictions on the Freedom Foundation’s ability to assist its client, the state is abridging our right to free speech.

“We’re disappointed five justices of the Supreme Court were made a party to a crude political payback,” McCabe said. “But we’re confident the U.S. Supreme Court will correct their error.”

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

11

FREEDOM IN THE NEWS ONLINE

ONLINE

JAN. 2, 2019

DEM GOV WHO HELPED UNION STEAL FROM FAMILY MEMBERS OF ELDERLY, DISABLED TO RUN IN 2020 “With the passage of SB 6199 by the Washington State House of Representatives in a contentious vote, final adoption of the bill depends on Gov. Jay Inslee’s signature ... the Freedom Foundation and three individual provider home care aides (IPs) delivered to Inslee’s office petition cards signed by 820 caregivers urging him to do the right thing and veto the legislation.”

ONLINE

JAN. 4, 2019

CONSERVATIVES TO TAKE ANOTHER SWING AT PUBLIC-SECTOR UNIONS “The Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit based in Washington state, is representing four home caregivers in the case Mentele v.

Inslee. The state-subsidized caregivers are challenging Washington’s decision to grant exclusive representation over them to the Service Employees International Union, on the grounds that it violates their First Amendment right of association. The case is currently in the 9th Circuit Court.

ANTI-UNION GROUPS TRY TO FORCE OREGON UNIONS TO GIVE UP DUES “The Freedom Foundation, based in Washington state, and National Right to Work Foundation are trying to win approval for a classaction suit against AFSCME Local 75 and the Service Employees International Union 503 ... The two groups are representing 10 government employees who quit their unions after the Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision last June held that it was unconstitutional for nonmembers to have to pay fees to the unions representing them.”

IN PRINT

“A split Washington Supreme Court ruled ... that the attorney general’s office can pursue a campaign finance disclosure case against the conservative Freedom Foundation(, which) had provided free legal services to residents of Sequim, Shelton and Chelan who gathered signatures for measures that would make collective bargaining sessions with public employee unions open to the public.”

Freedom Spend a week enjoying the fabulous view from your sixth-floor beachside condo with private lanai.

And the best part is every dollar will be donated by the owner to the Freedom Foundation.

Dates: Jan. 26 - Feb. 2 – 7 nights 1 Bedroom condo, sleeps 4 Units normally rent for $300 per night.

For more information, call Mark DalaN, VP of Development, at ( 206) 960-0297

JAN. 10, 2018

SPLIT COURT: LOCAL INITIATIVES SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE RULE

Rent a condo, relax in Hawaii…

and Advance thE Cause of

JAN. 1, 2019

12

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A P U BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON

ACTION TIMELINE SPOTLIGHTING SOME OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION’S NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PAST MONTH

Dec. 20 The Freedom Foundation announces it has filed two complaints with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleging pair labor unions have committed serious violations of the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), the state law governing election spending and disclosure.

The first, filed against the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 598 (UA 598) in November, targets the union’s practice of forcing its members to contribute to the union’s political action committee (PAC). The second involves the Amalgamated Transit Union of Washington State (ATULC). Every ATU local in Washington state pays a certain “per capita tax” for every member it has to the ATULC which repeatedly describes its purpose as engaging in “political activity” and “promoting candidates.”

Jan. 3 State payroll data obtained by the Freedom Foundation from the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) indicate a quarter of the state’s individual provider homecare aides (IPs) had no union dues withheld from their wages in October 2018, the highest percentage since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Harris v. Quinn made dues payment optional for these “partial-public employees.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 27, 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME held that it is unconstitutional for public employers to collect union dues from an employees’ pay without prior authorization, the Freedom Foundation in July filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Gov. Jay Inslee, DSHS and SEIU 775

for violating IPs’ First Amendment rights with the automatic dues deductions. By August, the state and union had ended the practice. At the time, the Freedom Foundation estimated ending the automatic deduction scheme would benefit about 6,000 IPs. This turned out to be spot on.

Jan. 10 A U.S. District Court judge dismisses a Freedom Foundation lawsuit seeking to invalidate Initiative 1501, which Washington voters approved in 2016. The ballot measure claimed to be about protecting vulnerable seniors from identity theft but was, in fact, a thinly veiled scheme to exempt home caregivers represented by SEIU 775 from public disclosure laws that would have enabled the Freedom Foundation to contact the workers and inform them of their right to opt out of the union. The judge conceded the wording was deceiving but concluded, “The motivations of the campaign cannot render void a lawfully passed initiative by the voters of Washington state even if some evidence indicates the electorate might have been misled…”

Jan. 10 The Freedom Foundation announces it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a 5-4 ruling issued against it by the Washington State Supreme Court over a campaign finance violation allegedly committed by the organization in 2014. The lawsuit stems from efforts by citizen activists in Sequim, Chelan and Shelton to place union reform initiatives on their local election ballot. Despite following the law carefully, the city council in each community refused to send the measure to the voters. When the activists sued, Freedom Foundation attorneys provided free legal assistance, which a union front group claimed should have been reported as an inkind campaign contribution.

Jan. 17 An op-ed co-written by Freedom Foundation California Director Bob Wickers and Outreach Director Sam Coleman about the Los Angeles teachers’ strike is published by the Los Angeles Times. Headlined, “How are LAUSD strike negotiations going? We’re in the dark. Collective bargaining needs some sunshine,” the piece makes the case that parents and taxpayers deserve to know what’s going on with the negotiations while they’re ongoing, not afterward when nothing can be changed.

“ I like the Freedom Foundation...it is on the front line.”

“ The American dream hangs in the balance… by tragic necessity the job of protecting that dream is in our hands.”

Hear Dinesh D’Souza’s powerful message from the Freedom Foundation’s annual dinner event.

Get your DVD—call Mark Dalan!

36 0-956-3 482