Freedom matters spring 2017 final ilovepdf compressed

Worshipping at the

UNION

Spring/Summer 2017

Volume 2, No. 1

ALTAR HAS ORGANIZED LABOR BECOME A SURROGATE FOR RELGION TO MANY ON THE LEFT? STORY, PAGE 26

A Publication of the Freedom Foundation

L

ife in a free-market economy means choices. As individuals, we make hundreds of decisions every day about the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the road we take to work and more.

In a country of several hundred million people, that means trillions of decisions every day – vastly more than even the fastest super computer could keep track of, let alone a human brain.

But the free market handles it all spectacularly well. Not perfectly, perhaps, but compare the wealth of options available in even a modest American grocery store to what you’ll find in a nation with a so-called “managed economy” and the difference is jarring.

And yet even in ths country, where we ought to know better and count our blessings every day, there are millions of people clamoring openly for socialism, communisim or just about anything but old-fashioned capitalism.

Why? Well, that depends on who’s doing the clamoring.

On the bottom of the scale, you’re apt to find a lot of people who haven’t achieved the sort of success someone else has. And rather than looking in the mirror and concluding they didn’t work hard enough, make sacrifices and avoid poor life choices, they blame the system.

But that’s only half the equation.

The bigger problem is the “leaders” – elected or otherwise – who fully understand economics but pander to the

unsuccessful and disaffected for their own benefit.

Again, no one with an IQ above room temperature honestly believes a group of bureaucrats armed with spreadsheets can anticipate and respond to the needs of a dynamic economy as quickly, efficiently or fairly as the free, unfettered market can.

But your perspective on that changes when you’re the one designated to make the choices.

Unions – particularly those representing government employees – see things that way, which explains why they’re frequently in lock step with socialists and communists.

Labor union leaders, at least those at the top of the pyramid, understand their economic model is unsustainable, but they’ll stick with it as long as it keeps them and the politicians they buy with other people’s money in positions of power.

At the Freedom Foundation, we’re not about power because we know we’ll never be the ones wielding it. We’re about choice. Because we know we can generally trust the free market as a whole to make the right ones for all of us.

Tom McCabe, CEO

Contents

Volume 2, No. 1

2. CEO’s Message:

The Freedom Foundation isn’t about power because we’ll never be the ones to wield it. We’re all about ensuring your right to choose in a free-market economy.

6. The Jobfather

Labor unions and the Mafia share a long, unsavory history. The only thing that’s changed now is that unions have learned how to make much of what both do legal.

10. Stitching Together a Union

Pay no attention to their spin. This is a shotgun wedding. SEIU and AFSCME wouldn’t even consider consolidating if Trump’s election hadn’t thrown them into a panic.

22. The Deciding Vote

The bad news for liberals is that President Trump got to nominate the new Supreme Court justice. The bad news for conservatives is that they still don’t know how he’ll vote on a critical public-sector union case.

26. Worshipping at the Union Altar

With its stylized rituals, emphasis on loyalty, faith in a higher power and dependence on true believers to dig deep to provide support, modern labor organizations function like a form of religion for many on the left.

30. Beloved Son

Two families an ocean apart share the special legacy of a gifted young man unable to fill it himself.

14. Union? What Union?

34. Redistribution of Wealth,

18. Who Won?

Liberals love to play the class-envy card to justify penalizing success, but all they really want is a way to hand out goodies to their special interests using someone else’s money.

Liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt made no secret of his opposition to unions in the public sector. Which is why the modern left has to reinvent and reinterpret what he obviously felt.

Much to the chagrin of some, the United States elects presidents with the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Here’s why that’s still a good idea.

or Plain, Old Theft?

38. Action Timeline

An overview of some of the Freedom Foundation’s major accomplishments during the past six months.

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.

n

the

Jobfather FREEDOM MATTERS

PAGE 6

n

FREEDOM MATTERS

Labor unions and the Mafia share a shady past. The only difference now is that unions have learned how to make what they do legal.

By MATTHEW HAYWARD n Outreach Coordinator

I

t’s no secret labor unions have enjoyed a long and unsavory history together. Both institutions were imported from Europe in the early 20th Century to fill a perceived niche in a rapidly industrializing United States, and both, at their core, consist of a group of outsiders seeking to make money by forcing someone else to pay for a “service” they wouldn’t pay for willingly.

And since both the Mob and organized labor can be more interested, shall we say, in results than process, it was only natural the dealings of both would eventually become intertwined.

The words “racketeer” and “racketeering,” in fact, were coined in 1927 in direct response to the Teamsters.

Countless volumes have been written on the subject, but just to hit a few recent highlights: n Longtime labor boss Joseph Dougherty was convicted of running his Philadelphia ironworkers’ union like an organized-crime syndicate. A jury in 2015 found him guilty on all six counts levied against him, including RICO conspiracy, extortion and using arson. n A year earlier, a top official in a New York City construction labor union sued a group of rivals, charging that they have mob ties and use violence to steal work from other unions. Lowell Barton, vice president of Local 1010 of the Laborers’ Union International, said Roland Bedwell, the business manager of Local 175 of the United Plant & Production Workers, slammed him in the

face with a hardhat and threatened to “f--- him up” if he came near any more job sites. n In Chicago, reputed Mafia associate Paul Carparelli was caught on undercover recordings ordering a beefy union bodyguard to “crack” a guy who owed a debt, the Chicago Tribune reported in 2015. n In December 2006, a jury found Anthony (Tony Muscles) Guardino, boss of New York City’s Brooklyn-based Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local 8, guilty of enterprise corruption crimes.

Guardino, connected to the Genovese crime family, was part of the union’s corrupt leadership, which shook down contractors at construction sites all over New York City to the tune of more than $2 million. n Only now is the Teamsters Union emerging from federal control imposed FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 7

TOUGH TALK “Always run from a knife and rush a gun.”

- JIMMY HOFFA, Teamsters president

on the union’s current head, James Hoffa, Jr., who is filling the role his father and namesake once did – before cozying up wiseguys and eventually paying with his life.

Into the 1990s and 2000s, we’ve continued to see organized labor connected to vandalism, murder, beatings, arson, assault and general intimidation.

And while it is no longer thought of as common practice for unions to break the legs of those who cross picket lines, and overt criminal behavior has diminished – though it clearly hasn’t disappeared entirely – bullying and harassment are still common tactics.

What has changed, however, is the law. Union leaders in recent years have discovered they can make far more money with lawyers than guns and brass knuckles.

Where Mafia dons like Al Capone spent freely to bribe local police to ignore their criminal enterprises, labor operatives these days address the problem preemptively by paying PAGE 8 n FREEDOM MATTERS

“The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They got a war, and they got a war with us.

There is only going to be one winner and it’s going to be us. Let’s take these sons of bitches out.”

- JAMES P. HOFFA,

Teamsters president Sept. 5, 2011

politicians to rewrite the laws altogether.

No scheme illustrates this trend better than the time-honored Mob protection racket. In the old days, goons would show up at a local business and inform its owners they needed to pay money to ensure no harm came to their store or restaurant.

Most paid up. Those who didn’t usually found themselves the victim of a curious arson fire.

Today’s thugs are more subtle, but no less intent on wetting their beak in someone else’s windfall.

In states lacking right-to-work protections, virtually every public-sector worker is required to pay monthly tribute to the union in the form of dues or agency fees.

Little of this revenue is used to pay for collective bargaining or activities that actually benefit the worker.

What doesn’t line the pockets of the union enforcers is plowed back into the business of buying off politicians and advancing a liberal political agenda.

In Washington, Oregon and California, for example, hundreds of thousands of Medicaid-compensated healthcare providers are required to attend a “training sessions” created through a Service Employees International Union (SEIU)-funded ballot initiative.

In true Mafia style, these trainings are used by the union as an opportunity for membership recruitment. SEIU is given exclusive access to the providers for the first portion of the mandatory meeting; the state employees who conduct the training are forced to leave the room while the propagandists work their magic.

Hundreds of people subjected to these ambushes have reported being lied to about their legal rights and harangued when they stood up to the union bully boys.

And when intimidation doesn’t work, the union resorts to sheer gall.

Unions collect dues, for example, whether the worker signs a member card or not. Only those who affirmatively opt out in writing are allowed to stop paying dues – and even that

can only happen during a designated 15-day window the worker isn’t even informed about.

In other training meetings, union reps have tricked everyone in the room into signing a membership card by telling them they “needed to sign it for their records.”

And once they sign, they’re trapped.

Union coercion can also take the form of psychological warfare.

A barrage of robocalls, emails, and mailings are sent out to providers smearing anyone who tries to expose the union racket. Uninformed workers are told they’ll lose their healthcare and wage increases if they opt out.

Those who have not signed a membership card, or have opted out of the union, can be assured someone from the union will be waiting for them one day when they come home.

For those who are not strong and forceful people, the union reps will attempt to enter the home and will do everything they can to avoid leaving without a signed membership card in hand.

In a number of recorded cases, when providers have asked their unwelcome visitors to leave their home after making it clear they want nothing to do with the union, the union rep agreed but asked the worker to sign a form verifying they had been talked to.

Unfortunately, the form turned out to be a union membership card.

Like the terrified shopkeepers preyed on by Mafia protection rackets, these home caregivers want nothing more than to be left alone. Few have the resources to fight back against the relentless union machine, and many simply capitulate because they’re never told they have other options.

Their legs aren’t broken and their places of business aren’t torched, but the effect is still the same – a shadowy organization whose leaders see what others have earned as a target of opportunity.

And far too many are made an offer they can’t refuse.

Don't Open the Door

O

n the evening of Dec. that she does not wish to 8, 2014, Doug and his speak to him about this wife Julie were at issue. Once again raising home when someone rang his voice, Jose demanded to the doorbell. Julie was in the know why my wife had not middle of preparing dinner, joined SEIU. and they weren’t expecting I then told him very any visitors. clearly that the conversaShe opened it to find a man tion is over and that we standing on her porch. “Are never want an SEIU repreyou Julie Daniels?” he asked. sentative to come onto our She replied in the affirmative property again.” and asked him his name. “My name is Jose,” he responded.

Unfortunately, Doug and “I’m with SEIU 775.”

Julie’s experience is far from Doug recounted what hap- unique. pened next in a complaint he Other complaints allege: subsequently filed with the state Attorney General: “SEIU Healthcare 775NW seems to think it is “He (Jose) then demanded acceptable to call people… to know why my wife had not several times a day, leaving joined SEIU. My wife stated identical automated mesthat she is in the middle of sages. We get a minimum cooking dinner and she did of 2x calls per day from not want to discuss the issue them, and I purchased new with him. Jose became more telephones that had the adversarial. call block feature on them Overhearing the haJUST to block these people rassment being directed from calling. I am beginat my wife, I immediately ning to feel as if I am being ran downstairs and told stalked…” my wife that I will handle the situation and that she and: should stay safe inside our home. When I asked Jose “Since opting out of for an explanation as to the union, SEIU 775 has why he had come to our repeatedly called me and home, he stated again that sent organizers to my house my wife had not joined the to try and coerce me into SEIU and he demanded to signing back up for union know the reason. I asked membership … I believe I his name. I stated that my am being harassed by SEIU wife had clearly stated 775…”

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 9

SEIU AFSCME PAGE 10 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Stitching Together a Union

I

Pay no attention to their spin. This is a shotgun wedding.

SEIU and AFSCME wouldn’t even consider consolidating if Trump’s election hadn’t thrown them into a panic.

n the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death and the resultant U.S. Supreme Court split decision in Friedrichs v.

California Teachers Association (2016), two of the nation’s largest labor unions revealed their frantic work of the months prior when they adopted joint resolutions stating their intent to consider a full-blown merger.

The plan emerged after months of unprecedented cooperation between the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), each of which – despite their differences – shares the politically profitable goal of unionizing public workers across the country.

Together, the two unions represent more than 3 million employees.

Back in 2005, frustration over declining membership and the nation’s

By BEN STRAKA Labor Policy Analyst

waning labor movement as a whole led SEIU and several other prominent unions to depart the AFL-CIO, the longstanding labor federation to which AFSCME still belongs.

Yet more than a decade later, the fate of big labor in America isn’t looking much better. And union bosses are still looking for answers as they struggle to withstand the country’s growing rejections of compulsory unionism.

Which begs the question, is a union merger the right answer?

For SEIU and AFSCME, it may be the only one left. The Friedrichs case was widely expected to bring right-towork protections to public employees nationwide, meaning unions could no longer rely on collecting millions of dollars from workers who could

be fired if they didn’t pay. And while Scalia’s death delayed the pro-worker ruling, there were similar cases in the pipeline.

The only question was whether the open seat would be filled by an activist willing to sacrifice the First Amendment rights to free speech and association on the altar of union influence or an originalist in the mold of Scalia.

Neil Gorsuch – now that he’s been confirmed – appears to be bad news for organized labor but good news for the Constitution.

The merger, meanwhile, would create the nation’s largest union. But it would also represent the ultimate defensive move from the leaders of an already defensive movement.

Twenty-eight states and counting have already given their employees right-to-work legislatively, causing union bosses to feel the political pinch that comes when workers can FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 11

A merger with AFSCME would “unite the power of our organizations at every level to deal with the unprecedented attack on working people and growing inequality in this country.”

“The point of this resolution is not to get to a merger. That’s not what we’re trying to do. But it is an option that exists and can’t be ignored.”

- MARY KAY HENRY,

SEIU president May 16, 2016

- LEE SAUNDERS,

AFSCME president May 16, 2016

actually choose how to spend their hard-earned money.

Even in the non-right-to-work stronghold of the Pacific Northwest, government union funds have been significantly depleted as workers continue to learn of their newly affirmed constitutional rights. It seems that when individuals discover they can opt out of funding their union’s political agenda, they do so more often than not.

Given the growing strength of such efforts, it should perhaps come as no surprise that the unions’ response is to consolidate their power into a single entity.

While a formal merger has yet to take place, the resolutions adopted by SEIU and AFSCME set the plan in motion by establishing a partnership with four stated goals.

Innovation within the existing labor model.

It’s unclear what is meant by inPAGE 12 n FREEDOM MATTERS

novation, but one might suspect it doesn’t carry the usual connotation.

The only “innovation” on display from the Northwest’s beleaguered government unions has been a concerted effort to protect the compulsory union model by restricting their members’ rights and using their money to manipulate already weak state labor laws.

Further, recent history suggests traditional collective bargaining is simply unable to regain its strength in the modern workplace.

Somewhat ironically, former SEIU president Andy Stern cited the AFLCIO’s inability to combat this very problem as his main reason for leading the 2005 split from the federation and into a new coalition, Change to Win. Yet big labor is not winning – and this time around, the only response is to shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Ultimately, union bosses are either unwilling or unable to truly

innovate within the existing labor model because, at its core, it relies on a one-size-fits-all approach that is incompatible with the growing national trend towards increased worker choice.

Creation of ‘new forms of self-sustaining democratic worker organizations For all the rhetoric about existing labor unions being democratic organizations, it’s telling that SEIU and AFSCME all but admit otherwise. Their actions, at least, betray an understanding that the old model built on Communist ideals is unsustainable.

Given that compulsory unionism is on its way out the door, it only makes sense for unions to pursue alternative forms of voluntary worker organizations.

While history doesn’t inspire much confidence in their ability to do so, union bosses likely realize that

without the ability to force workers to pay, they will need to offer better services to workers in order to receive permission to take their money.

Old habits die hard, however, and Big Labor has shown time and again that an aggressive social and political agenda far outweighs the need for accountable workplace representation.

A merger may allow them to pool their resources and address the problem from a united front, but whether they can successfully create anything new is another question entirely.

Renewed efforts to organize the private sector.

It’s not difficult to understand why SEIU and AFSCME would share this goal. While a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case like Friedrichs could give public employees the freedom to choose for themselves whether to subsidize a labor union, the decision would not apply to workers in the private sector.

Instead, the same protections for private-sector workers would have to be accomplished by state legislatures enacting formal right-to-work laws.

Given that the budgets of SEIU and AFSCME are largely built on union dues forcibly deducted from government employees, it’s only natural they should consider a renewed effort in the private sector.

Yet private-sector union membership is at historic lows, and even more states are likely to pass rightto-work in the coming years.

The private sector hardly holds the key to solving Big Labor’s many problems. In the face of nationwide right-to-work for public employees, it’s simply another sign of desperation from America’s fading government unions.

For SEIU and AFSCME, a merger

would at least temporarily give them greater organizing power by eliminating competition and giving them greater resources to pour into organizing campaigns.

Spearhead the ‘social-economic justtice’ movement.

The final goal of the unions’ partnership also happens to be their most important. Ironically, it’s also largely responsible for what the unions themselves view as “attacks” on organized labor.

The ability to force employees to pay union fees as a condition of employment has given union bosses the resources to spend millions of dollars on a political agenda with which many of their members disagree.

Political influence is undoubtedly

the biggest area in which government unions will suffer when they can no longer forcibly deduct dues from workers’ pay.

While shifting to a voluntary form of employee organization is a step in the right direction ethically, unions like SEIU and AFSCME know full well that roughly half of the employees they represent would choose not to subsidize their political and social agenda.

Practically speaking, a union merger would do little to guarantee that SEIU and AFSCME could retain the massive amounts of influence they wield using workers’ involuntary union fees. At best – for the unions, that is – a unified front gives them the best chance to pool their

resources in an attempt to cling to whatever power they do have left.

Unfortunately, what’s best for the union bosses is typically not best for the workers they claim to represent.

Time and again, unions respond to increased worker choice by attacking the groups who aid in such efforts and pouring their energy into creative ways to ignore the law at the expense of workers’ rights.

At the end of the day, it’s important to remember SEIU and AFSCME would rather not merge at all.

The unions breathed a collective sigh of relief following Scalia’s death in 2016, and news of the potential merger died down for quite some time.

But following a presidential election that has left union bosses reeling, the plan is likely once again in full motion.

Soon after Donald Trump’s victory, SEIU announced a 30 percent budget reduction for the year 2017, perhaps cutting duplicate costs in anticipation of the move.

Whether or not a full-blown merger becomes a reality, it’s clear that two of the nation’s largest unions have been pushed to the point of desperation.

A merger between SEIU and AFSCME is a desperate, defensive maneuver to cope with the fact that workers across the country are rejecting compulsory unionism.

Whether it be in a case brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of the many states passing right-to-work laws, or the slower erosion caused by a relentless opt-out campaign in the Northwest, workers are making it clear that their money does not belong in the hands of corrupt union bosses who serve only to advance a leftist political agenda.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 13

Union? What U

By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor

I

t is, for those who oppose the whole notion of public-sector employees unionizing, something of a trump card – no pun intended.

Nothing so thoroughly discombobulates organized labor and its traditional enablers among the political left as confronting them with a letter written in 1937 by then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt – the acknowledged architect of the modern welfare state with its slavish deference to union leaders – that states in unequivocal terms why public employees cannot and should not be permitted to organize.

PAGE 14 n FREEDOM MATTERS

“All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt wrote. “It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures or rules in personnel matters.”

Union?

Liberal icon FDR made no secret of his opposition to public-sector unions. But don’t try telling that to the Left of today.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 15

The letter was written to Luther C. Steward, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees (an offshoot of the Brotherhood of Teamsters that currently represents 100,000 employees nationwide in the Department of Defense, the Forest Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the National Park Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Housing and Urban Development), who had invited the president to attend the organization’s 20th jubilee convention.

FDR turned down the invitation, by the way, which only further underscores the vast differences between the political landscape then and now. You can rest assured, for example, former-President Obama would have been chomping at the bit to speak to a roomful of his most generous donors.

And even if he wasn’t, it’s difficult to imagine the union taking no for an answer.

In 1937, however, the president was still giving the orders and organized labor taking them, although it’s beyond dispute that Roosevelt’s New Deal ushered in many of the changes that made the reverse true today.

Getting back to the letter, FDR wrote that groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers.

Organizations of government employees “have a logical place in government affairs,” he wrote.

PAGE 16 n FREEDOM MATTERS

On the other hand, “(M)eticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government.”

And therein lies the wiggle room with which modern day progressives can still lionize Roosevelt’s every word while still ignoring his unequivocal feelings on the subject of what has become the bulwark on which liberal ideology has come to rest.

During his ascent to power in Wisconsin several years ago, Gov. Scott Walker – the patron saint of government employee union antagonists – was never reluctant to play the Roosevelt card.

“Some people are surprised to know this,” he once explained, “(but) the position I pushed is not unlike the principle that Franklin Delano

Roosevelt, not exactly a conservative, pushed as well when it came to public sector collective bargaining. He felt that there wasn’t a need – and others like him, (former New York Mayor Fiorello) LaGuardia and others – felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. We are the people.”

Again, it’s pretty tough to dispute the meaning of Roosevelt’s own words preserved on yellowing White House letterhead in the Roosevelt Library, but liberals are nothing if not flexible where language is concerned.

For an ideology that can divine an absolute right to privacy not in the Constitution itself but in the “penumbras and emanations” of subsequent murky rulings, it’s child’s play to recalibrate the unmistakable words of even their most revered personage to arrive at a meaning more in keeping with what the old boy should have said than what he actually did.

Writing in 2013 for Politifact, which fancies itself a nonpartisan barometer of truth but is, in reality, a reliably leftist mechanism created and referenced by the mainstream media to give its highly biased reporting the patina of respectability, writer Dave Umhoefer tried gamely to make you disbelieve your own lying eyes.

“Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDR’s sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers,” he wrote, “the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high.”

“All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”

That may be true, but it ignores the sticky point that one actually existed in Roosevelt’s time while the other didn’t. Although private-sector workers in Europe had formed trade unions as early as the 14th Century, the first government employee union in the United States was only 40 years old when Roosevelt wrote the letter in question. The NFFE itself was formed in 1917.

Public-sector workers were not permitted to collectively bargain until the Kennedy administration – nearly 20 years after FDR’s death. Under the circumstances, it doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable to think the president might have more to say about privatesector unions, which were enjoying their golden years, than about government unions, which existed in little more than name only.

Umhoefer ultimately rates Walker’s citation of Roosevelt as “narrowly true.” Translated, that means it’s true beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the writer isn’t happy about it.

An anonymous blogger in the Daily Kos, however, straddles no such fences. Writing in 2011, the author blandly asserts, “(A)s anyone who reads the entire letter from which the article quotes, ever so selectively, can easily see – FDR did not oppose federal public employee unions. He opposed strikes by federal public employee unions.” (Emphasis added.)

Except it’s not at all clear Roosevelt felt that way – mostly because that’s not what he said, and FDR wasn’t one to mince words. Moreover, saying you’re OK with unions but

opposed to strikes is a bit like saying you’re in favor of hot fudge sundaes but not calories.

Unfortunately, you have to take the bad with the good.

Speaking of which, several scholars note that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVA’s board, appointed by Roosevelt, chose as a matter of policy to recognize the unions and bargain with them.

The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining.

The TVA episode is “the only effective rebuttal” offered to the words in FDR’s letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelt’s thinking on unions.

The thing is, we’re not talking about what Roosevelt did as a matter of political expediency back then any more than we’re talking about how he’d likely act in 2017, given how public-sector unions have evolved into the philosophical and financial base of the American political left.

We’re arguing about what Franklin Delano Roosevelt – the single most important figure in the history of the Democratic Party – believed in his heart.

The Daily Kos blogger – whoever he or she is – concludes by noting that if Roosevelt truly opposed the idea of organized labor infiltrating the ranks of government, he wouldn’t

have written the offending letter in the first place. To wit: “That’s right. FDR’s letter congratulating a federal employees’ union on its 20th anniversary is being used by the GOP to claim FDR opposed government employee unions. So, to repeat, another important lesson here: When middle-class destroying, union bashing Republicans quote FDR in support of their agenda, assume they are lying.”

But once again, Roosevelt was first, last and always a politician – and a very calculating one at that. It makes no difference whether he paid lip service to a toothless tiger. All that matters is what he said and did when he had the chance.

And what he did was to decline to attend and pay tribute to an organization he didn’t consider legitimate while using the opportunity presented by its invitation to set forth in clear, unassailable terms precisely why he felt that way.

With all due respect to the Daily Kos blogger (which is to say none), there are actually two morals to this story, and neither resembles in any way what he wants you to take away from the discussion: 1. It’s a waste of time arguing facts with people who don’t believe there are such things.

2. The left has officially sold its soul to public-sector unions when it’s willing to throw the Progressive Movement’s unquestioned mastermind and all he stands for under the bus to manufacture a consensus where none exists.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 17

PAGE 18 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Wait...

What?

.

Much to the chagrin of some, the U.S. elects presidents with the Electoral College, not the popular vote. And it should, too.

By TRENT ENGLAND Adjunct Fellow

T

he greatest test of a political system is the transfer of power, and there is no greater transfer of political power than from one president of the United States to the next.

Unfortunately – or fortunately, depending on your perspective – three times in U.S. history, including twice in the past 16 years, that transfer has been more controversial than many would like by virtue of a curious quirk known as the Electoral College.

And while it’s understandable those on the losing side of an election in which their candidate polled his (or her) opponent yet failed to win the presidency, it’s essential we understand why the system was set up as it FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 19

Presidents Who Lost...

BENJAMIN HARRISON

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES

He received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 1876, he won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

GEORGE W. BUSH

DONALD J. TRUMP

In 2000, lost the popular vote to Al Gore by about 540,000.

However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote.

Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump

... But Still Won was – and why it’s well worth preserving.

The Electoral College – the twostep, state-based process for electing presidents and vice presidents – has served the United States well for more than two centuries.

Nevertheless, a handful of American states in recent years have moved to adopt so-called National Popular Vote legislation. The law, which would only take effect if passed by enough states to control the outcome, pledges a state’s electoral votes to the winner of the most popular votes nationwide.

An ‘excellent’ system Alexander Hamilton wrote in “The Federalist” (No. 68) that, if the Electoral College is not perfect, “it PAGE 20 n FREEDOM MATTERS

is at least excellent.” The system probably works even better than the American Founders expected, considering the addition of 37 states and the development of two powerful political parties since Hamilton’s original judgment.

The Electoral College is established by Article II of the Constitution, with a few modifications in the 12th Amendment. Each state gets as many electors as it has US representatives and senators – that is, the balance of power in the Electoral College is the same as in Congress.

Each elector casts one electoral vote for president and another for vice president.

The Constitution grants power to state legislatures to decide how to select their state’s electors. This allows each state to represent its own

political will in the Electoral College system.

Since early in the 19th century, most states have held popular elections. Today, 48 states and the District of Columbia use a “winner-takeall” method: the candidate receiving the most votes in a particular state wins all the electors and thus all the state’s electoral votes.

Maine and Nebraska elect one elector in each of their congressional districts and the remaining two statewide.

Decentralizes elections & nationalizes politics The process may be complicated, but the benefits are straightforward. The Electoral College decentralizes elections and nationalizes politics.

2016 Electoral Vote Map Because of the Electoral rise to power based on strong Trump 306 support from one large state or Clinton 232 College, the United States has no national election bureauregion. The geographic districracy – no presidential apbution required by the Electorpointee in charge of presidenal College provides a healthy tial elections. incentive to keep American Instead, every state plus politics national.

Washington, D.C., establishes The dangers of and executes its own set of pol‘majoritarianism’ icies. State and local officials act based on a combination of Reminders of the 2000 their political culture and their election – when George W. appetite for policy innovation.

Bush lost the national popuThese are the “laboratories of lar vote but won the electoral democracy” in action. vote – and pleas for “every vote Containing elections within re-election in 1888, he received equal” and “one person, one vote” state lines also means containing the most popular votes but lost have won some converts to the cause election problems. The Electoral Colthe Electoral College and thus the of the National Popular Vote. lege turns the states into the equivapresidency to Benjamin Harrison.

Yet the argument against the lent of the watertight compartments Cleveland won 82 percent in South Electoral College is, at its core, the on an ocean liner.

Carolina, and more than 70 percent argument for simple majoritarianFraud or process failures can be ism. Many observers have noted that isolated in the state where they occur in Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana. the rationale of the National Popular and need not become national crises.

Harrison was nowhere so intenseVote movement would mean the end Ironically, by decentralizing ly popular, but he won in the most of the U.S. Senate, where states are presidential elections, the Electoral states, including large population represented equally regardless of the College nationalizes and moderates states like New York, Pennsylvania size of their population. our politics.

Majoritarianism – the idea that Filtering the elections through the and Ohio.

After the 1888 election, Cleveland nothing should stand in the way of states imposes a kind of geographic and the Democratic Party redoubled the power of a majority – flies in the distribution requirement to win the their efforts to reach into the North face of the Bill of Rights. After all, evpresidency. and out to the new western states. ery check and balance and especially This also leads to the most comThey succeeded – Cleveland won every protection of rights operates to mon attack on the current system: the popular vote and the Electoral restrain the power of a momentary It can produce a winner who did not College in 1892, becoming the only majority. receive the most popular votes. This Opponents of the Electoral College happens when the candidate with the person elected to two non-consecutive terms as President. would do well to remember that freemost popular votes has too many of Without the Electoral College, the dom and prosperity rely on social and those votes in too few states.

Democratic Party of 1888 would have political stability. This is the thesis This reality shapes the way presihad a successful campaign strategy: of the United States Constitution, dential campaigns are conducted and which establishes durable political national political parties are organized. intense regional popularity. If National Popular Vote had been the institutions together with processes Because the Electoral College has law of the land, the Democrats could that incentivize coalition building a geographic distribution requirehave remained the party of the Deep and moderation. ment, rather than simply taking South.

The Electoral College serves these the plurality winner of the national The Electoral College forced the ends, and by doing so, strengthens popular vote, it compels candidates Democrats to look north and to reour political system and supports our and parties to build and maintain build their national coalition, even in freedom. national coalitions. the aftermath of the Civil War. Lessons from The threat of regional politics is This article originally appeared in Grover Cleveland one of the original reasons for the U.S. News & World Report in August Electoral College. The Framers of 2010. It was revised to incorporate Grover Cleveland learned this the Constitution feared “favorite son” discussion of the 2016 presidential lesson the hard way. Running for candidates: politicians who might race outcome.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 21

The De

PAGE 22 n FREEDOM MATTERS

eciding Vote?

By MAXFORD NELSEN n Labor Policy Director

The bad news for public-sector unions is that President Trump, not Hillary Clinton, got to nominate the justice who may turn the whole country into a right-to-work state. The bad news for conservatives is no one knows how Neil Gorsuch will vote on the issue until he does.

T

he unforeseen death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia last year took many political observers by surprise, perhaps none more so that Rebecca Friedrichs, lead plaintiff in a case the court had just heard.

Joined by nine other California public school teachers, Friedrichs was challenging a state law allowing her union, the California Teachers Association, to have her fired for refusing to pay union “agency fees.�

Friedrichs and her co-plaintiffs objected to the causes and agenda the union used their money to advance, and contended the requirement to financially support a union against their will violated their First Amendment free speech protections.

Decades prior, in Abood v. Detroit

Board of Education (1977), the Supreme Court had upheld similar requirements for public employees. However, in recent years the court has begun backing away from Abood in a series of decisions beginning with Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007), a case brought by the Freedom Foun-

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 23

tion on behalf of a group of Washington teachers upset about the union’s use of their dues and fees for political activity without their consent.

Subsequent decisions like Knox v. Service Employees International Union (2012) and Harris v. Quinn (2014) continued the trend.

By the time Friedrichs made its way before the Supreme Court last year, many observers predicted the court would finally strike down the constitutionality of compelled agency fees for public employees.

After oral arguments in January 2016, the New York Times reported, “the court’s conservative majority seemed ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they had declined to join violates the First Amendment. Justice Scalia’s questions were consistently hostile to the unions.”

That all changed with Scalia’s unexpected passing at a Texas hunting lodge the following month. Left with eight members, the court ultimately deadlocked 4-4, leaving intact the 9th Circuit’s ruling in favor of the union.

Government unions jubilantly vowed to take their fight to the polls in November to ensure Scalia’s replacement was appointed by a unionfriendly Democrat.

Instead, they got Donald Trump.

During his campaign, Trump attempted to assuage the reservations of some conservatives about his bona fides by promising to appoint a Supreme Court justice from a list of 21 conservative candidates.

The gambit worked.

Exit polling conducted by NBC found that Supreme Court appointments were “an important factor” or the “most important factor” for fully 75 percent of Trump voters.

Trump’s decision to stay true to his word by nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s seat on the bench provides First Amendment activists like Rebecca Friedrichs and organizations like the Freedom Foundation a second shot at overturning compulsoPAGE 24 n FREEDOM MATTERS

ry unionization for public employees once and for all.

But the fight to see Gorsuch confirmed — which ultimately required Senate Republican leaders to employ the “nuclear” option of lowering the marghin needed from 60 votes to a simple majority — will almost certainly prove to be only the first act in a long drama.

Even with Gorsuch ensconced on the court, another case challenging the constitutionality of agency fee requirements for public employees must still make its way through the judicial pipeline.

Several such cases are already being litigated, with Janus v. AFSCME currently the favorite to the reach the Supreme Court first.

The case was initiated by Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner in 2015, who issued an executive order shortly after his election barring the state from withholding agency fees from public employees’ pay.

Instead of waiting for the unions to challenge the order in court, Rauner sued first, challenging agency fees on constitutional grounds.

When the court eventually determined that Rauner himself did not have legal standing to bring the case, three state employee agency fee payers intervened and replaced the governor as plaintiffs.

The case is currently before the 7th Circuit.

Even once the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, however, there is no guarantee that at least four justices will agree to grant certiorari and hear the case.

The fact that four justices recently ruled against compulsory unionism in the Friedrichs decision is encouraging, but whether the justices will be willing to bring the issue up again so soon is unknown.

Third, if the court agrees to hear Janus or another similar case, a majority of the justices must rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

Assuming the other justices vote as they did in Friedrichs, Gorsuch’s

would be the deciding vote.

Gorsuch’s views on the issue are not clear but, for their part, government unions treated his nomination, with perhaps a tinge of exhaustion, as merely a step shy of Armageddon.

Richard Trumka, head of the AFLCIO, said he was “deeply troubled” by Gorsuch’s nomination.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) labeled Gorsuch “an extremist who would most likely turn back regulations that protect working people in favor of big corporations.”

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), predicted “Judge Gorsuch will only help rig the system even worse against working families and our communities… Working people could lose the ability to join together at work and have a voice in a union.”

Though they don’t reference the case explicitly, the unions’ rhetoric is cut-and-pasted from the talking points they employed against Friedrichs.

Almost exactly a year ago, the SEIU claimed the plaintiffs in Friedrichs were seeking to prevent public employees “who provide vital services for our communities” from being able to “have a voice at work and join together to build a better future for their families.”

Without question, the right decision would be monumental. Overnight, government unions would have to cease collecting millions of dollars in agency fees from hundreds of thousands of nonmember public employees around the country, and experience has shown that many more public employees will happily leave union monopolies behind if given a choice.

But contrary to the apocalyptic rhetoric of organized labor, the end of agency fees would not automatically do irreparable damage to unions.

An article in the journal EducationNext estimated that only about 130,000 (about 4 percent) of the

approximately 3.5 million public school employees represented by the two major teachers unions— the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers—are currently agency fee payers.

Public employees’ unions have operated effectively and maintained respectable membership rates in right-to-work states, where agency fees are already banned, for decades.

What’s more, the Friedrichs case gave unions a dry run to prepare for the loss of agency fees.

Many unions, like AFSCME, have already launched significant “internal organizing” efforts designed to convert current agency fee payers into card-carrying, fulldues paying members, with some success.

Even if all the stars align and the Supreme Court strikes down compulsory unionism for public employees nationwide, there will be plenty of follow-up work to do on the ground, in the courts and in state capitols to ensure that public employees are aware of and able to meaningfully exercise their newly acknowledged constitutional rights.

After the Supreme Court in 2014 freed “partial public employees” like state-paid home care aides from the obligation to pay union dues and fees in Harris, unions and their allies in state capitols rushed to implement a series of policies and practices to circumvent the ruling.

For example, in Washington, though the state and union allow caregivers to opt-out of the dues deductions in writing, they continue to automatically withhold full union dues from all caregivers’ pay, even if the caregiver has refused to sign a union membership form and has never authorized the deduction.

In Oregon, lawmakers rushed

Labor reacts to Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation MARY KAY HENRY, president, SEIU – “Judge Gorsuch has again proved that he isn’t the kind of judge who gives working people a fair shot at justice.

His record, refusal to answer fair and direct questions during the hearing, and the missing, critical information about his record at the Justice Department show a complete disregard for the fairness and transparency America’s working people need and deserve from our nation’s highest court.”

LEE SAUNDERS, president, AFSCME – “Today the American people were once again cheated by a system rigged against them. The Senate’s action to ram through the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch without strong bipartisan support sets a troubling precedent and sheds further light on the politicization of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must not be used as a political tool to satisfy a ruthless corporate agenda. Justice Gorsuch must take his responsibility to the country and to the Constitution seriously by standing up for everyone, not just the privileged and the powerful.”

LILY ESKELSEN GARCIA, president, NEA: “(Neil) Gorsuch’s legal opinions … seem to say that an education that broadens horizons need not be within the reach of all kids. I’m not going to waste time questioning how, exactly, he came to this conclusion. I don’t want to hear him explain the whys and wherefores, or how his interpretation of the law informs his views. I just know his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court would be very, very wrong for students across our nation.”

through a change in the state’s public records laws to hinder the Freedom Foundation’s efforts to inform unionized caregivers of their rights.

And in California, unionized homecare aides are being prevented from cancelling their dues deductions unless they make the request in writing during an arbitrary, 10-day annual window period.

All of these states also provide various opportunities for union organizers to pressure new caregivers into signing up for union membership during their orientation and/or training.

Fortunately, unions are not the only ones who have been learning from Friedrichs and Harris. From capitol steps to doorsteps, the Freedom Foundation is fighting back against each of these schemes on every possible front.

For instance, after a multiyear effort to inform state-paid and SEIU-represented family child care providers in Washington of their rights under Harris — which included follow-up litigation, defensive legislative work to block union-initiated bills, and a comprehensive outreach campaign to inform providers of their rights through direct mail, email, TV advertisements and doorto-door canvassing — six in 10 providers are no longer members of SEIU. This invaluable experience means that, as the nation waits to see whether public employees will get another shot at vindicating their rights before the Supreme Court, there is perhaps no organization in the country better positioned than the Freedom Foundation to take advantage of the opportunities such a ruling would provide and to ensure that public employees First Amendment rights are meaningfully protected.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 25

PAGE 26 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Worshipping at the

UNION

ALTAR

With their stylized rituals, emphasis on loyalty, faith in a higher power and tendency to denounce those who disagree as heretics, labor organizations function as a radical form of religion for many.

By GREG OVERSTREET & ANNE MARIE GURNEY

I

Managing Attorney

Oregon Director

t’s no secret to conservatives that their liberal friends almost always take politics much more seriously than they do. Which isn’t to say conservatives don’t care, but for most of them it just isn’t the life-and-death proposition it seems to be with those on the left.

The question is why, and there are any number of hypotheses floating around to explain it. Among the more compelling of these is the notion that politics is a form of religion for those on the left.

While statistics and anecdotal experience confirm that conservatives are much more likely to embrace secular, church-based faith, liberals are no less needful of a spiritual component in their lives.

While they may not admit it, their political agenda offers what, for them, amounts to an acceptable substitute.

And if liberalism is the religion, there are surely denominations within to accommodate the particular focus of the individual adherent. Where the umbrella of Christianity fits comfortably over Catholics and Protestants, for example, the religion of liberalism includes a variety of sects that subscribe to dogmas

such as Environmentalism, Multiculturalism and Animal Rights.

Or perhaps the most militant of all, Organized Laborism.

To be sure, these labels don’t apply to everyone. A typical union member, or a non-member who simply believes in treating workers fairly, is not an extremist and likely doesn’t view his or her union as a religion.

The “extremists” are the union leaders and foot soldiers who carry out the will of the leaders, not the rank and file who only want to do their job and be left alone.

With that in mind, let’s look at the common features of major world religions and compare how extremist union members’ beliefs compare to standard definitions of “religion.”

In general, a religion has several defining components. These include:

1. Adherents defining themselves as good and their opponents as evil.

Union extremists tell anyone who will listen that they only want workers to have better lives. The unions – and only the unions – want workers to enjoy great wages, generous vacation time, universal healthcare, workplace respect, health and safety, no FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 27

more rainy days, and to have their dogs and cats clean up their own messes.

Those successes can only be achieved through union membership – so the unions are “good.”

Anyone who disagrees is by definition evil. And in the absence of any substantive charges, true believers simply label infidels “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic” or whatever epithet comes to mind in the heat of battle.

Belief that there is a struggle between good and evil.

Closely related to the existence of good and evil is the struggle those competing forces. In every religion, there is a ferocious fight being waged or there’d be no urgency about choosing sides.

Union extremists personify this by speaking in terms of the “the fight,” “the battle,” “the war” and, of course, “the struggle” for better working conditions.

A definable force of evil working here on Earth to thwart those trying to do good.

A “devil” figure – an invisible evildoer who foils the work of the good people – is present in all recognized world religions. So, too, in the union religion; “corporations” and their paid agents lurk behind every corner sabotaging the good work of the unions.

Organizations like the Freedom Foundation are the perfect devil for the unions. The organization is denounced as part of the “shadowy corporate interests” that do the work of “out-of-state billionaires.”

The unions attribute their defeats to the Freedom Foundation’s almost supernatural powers to derail their good works.

The promise of paradise if their ways are followed.

To hear the unions describe it, all the world’s problems would be PAGE 28 n FREEDOM MATTERS

instantly solved if every employee joined a union. Everyone would have great wages, generous vacation time, etc., once the unionization rate gets to 100 percent. Not surprisingly, their religion is the only one capable of delivering on such lofty promises.

Belief in a moral code of conduct.

Every religion has a moral code of conduct. Unions are no different.

They require people to be “moral” by paying workers the wages they want, giving generous vacation time, providing “free” health care, etc.

This is their moral code.

Requiring their moral code be followed by all.

A common component of many religions is the expectation that even non-believers follow their moral code.

Unions are no different. Employers must agree to unionization of the workplace and allow unions to overtake their workplace, and any objection is deemed “immoral.”

Right-to-work states are a good example of this moral requirement.

Such states are vilified when workers are permitted to choose whether or not to join a union.

States like Wisconsin, where a contentious ideological and political battle was waged before becoming a “right-to-work” state, is a good example of this vilification.

Extreme disdain for “non-believers.”

Members of many religions dislike non-believers and, again, unions are no different. Workers who choose to resign their membership can expect harassment, frivolous lawsuits and even physical intimidation or assault from union extremists.

Unions also vilify heretics who insist on educating union members about their rights to exercise their Constitutional rights regarding their union membership. Dissent cannot be tolerated.

Need to excommunicate those who stray.

Many religions sever ties with those who abandon the religion.

(Religion experts might argue that once a religion starts using excommunication as a weapon to manipulate members to stay in a group they don’t wish to belong to, that religion has now become a “cult.”)

Again, unions are no exception.

Former union members describe being shunned by union extremists who are legally required to represent them.

Even worse, many former union employees have described being “blacklisted” and harassed after they left the union. Other members describe uncovering illegal activities and horrendous treatment of fellow union employees.

A sense of purpose and fitting in with other believers.

Fellowship and common interests are foundational reasons why many individuals are members of a group or religion, and there’s nothing wrong with this.

However, extremists in all religions gravitate to fellow extremists in that religion to find a sense of purpose and social acceptance that has eluded them.

Consider media accounts of extremists who are misfits where the only place they fit in is with their brother and sister misfit extremists.

Some of the most extreme union activists live in their parents’ basements and obsess constantly about “Karl Rove” and “the corporations.”

The only place they fit in is with other extremists.

Union activism gives their otherwise unfulfilled lives a purpose.

A ready explanation for why things aren’t going their way.

For extremists, their religion (or at least their interpretation of it) offers an explanation for all their

troubles. Perhaps the explanation in a major religion is that members have done something bad, or, in another religion that members did something bad in a previous life.

Nonetheless, the religion provides the explanation. It makes sense to that union activist living in his or her parents’ basement that “union busters” are the only thing keeping him or her from having a full, problem-free life.

Establishing Unionism as an Official Religion

W

hen Congress empowered labor unions in the 1930s, it transgressed the prohibition against establishing religion. It went far toward establishing unionism as an official religion. For example, in the Wagner Act of 1935 Congress proclaimed as correct doctrine what is in fact union dogma.

More important, it gave labor unions standing which can be fruitfully compared with that of established churches. An established church is one which has special standing before the government. It has been granted special privileges, may have a monopoly within a state or country, and enjoys the protection and support of the government.

contempt, for example, by harassing and suing union members who have a religious objection to how the union spends their dues money (for example, by funding Planned Parenthood).

And when those workers exercise their constitutional rights to divert all or a portion of their union dues to a non-union entity, the union leaders make life difficult for those workers.

While the Catholic Church had some of the attributes of an established church in Medieval Europe, the species took on its full form during the Protestant Reformation. The Medieval church did not consider itself to be a creature of any or all of the states; on the contrary, it preferred the position that the state was a creature of the church.

*** There are countless parallels, and they all suggest liberals very often Every religion needs use their political beliefs to expand, or at the very to satisfy their spiritual least, maintain, its memneeds.

Not so, however, the churches that were established during the Reformation. In many countries and principalities, the religion bership numbers. ReliThat’s why conservaof the prince was to be the religion of his subjects. The Peace of gions, in varying degrees, tives can generally discuss Augsburg of 1548, which dealt with Germany, provided that the attempt to convert people politics in a rational man“princes and governments of the Free Cities were to be allowed to maintain their influner while liberals become to choose between the Roman and the Lutheran faith, but their ence. completely unhinged. subjects must either conform to this faith . . . or emigrate.” In Unions certainly do. The When your heart and England, the king became head of the church as well as head of difference is that unions soul are invested in a the state. do it primarily to maintain particular belief system, Of course, the parallels between established churches and their income streams from any challenge to it feels established unions are not exact. Still, there are some highly forced union dues. So in like the anchor tethersuggestive similarities. In both cases, the government did the fairness to the unions, it’s ing you to reality is being establishing, or recognition and protection. True, during the Reformation, it was the prince who made the decision; nowadays the less a hallmark of being a weighed. decisions for unions are made by majorities. But the former was religion and more of a busiJust as secular religion in the days of the divine right of kings; whereas, we live in the age ness necessity. has been the root of many of the divine right of majorities.

Still, union extremists wars thoughout history, Churches often have had their canon law; labor unions, by do have a zeal to convert so, too, has nonsecular contrast, live under administrative law. And, no Holy Synod has people; the leaders have religion and the resistance ever scrutinized with greater care the articles of faith than does the monetary interest. of others to embrace it. the National Labor Relations Board, the rules which emerge from In the end, both expresits decisions.

A belief that their religion sions come down to faith.

CLARENCE B. CARSON is generally incompatible The difference is that, with Foundation for Economic Education, with other religions. few exceptions, secular January 1981 religions – at least in this Almost all religions becountry – have no authorlieve that they alone hold The unions have a mixed record ity to force nonbelievers to the truth—they are the path to their on this. No one can claim that unions do things their way. version of heaven. discourage conventional religious But for those who worship at the Religious extremists don’t like beliefs, but it is fair to say the union altar of government – especially their members to simultaneously as a whole advances an agenda often the one erected in the Church of be members of other religions; some at odds with them.

Unionology – that’s pretty much even forbid it.

Union leaders demonstrate their the whole idea.

The need to actively attempt to convert others.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 29

PAGE 30 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Beloved Son

A promising young student’s dream of a career advocating for free-market economics creates an enduring bond between two familes an ocean apart who nurtured his remarkable gifts.

By IRENE ENDICOTT Legacy Society Director

T

he letter arrived out of the blue at the Schmidt home. It was 10 pages long, handwritten in impeccable English, postmarked March 1988, Tokyo, Japan.

It was a mother’s plea for her son, Masato David Yoshimatsu, who attended a heavily regimented Japanese school where he wasn’t flourishing.

She thought he would do better in an American school and asked if David could please to live with the Schmidt family in America where he could be free and study.

For 14 years, Howard and Norma Schmidt had taken foreign students into their home in Bellevue, Wash., to help them achieve their academic goals.

Each student attended either the International Business program at Bellevue Community College or Sammamish High School where Howard taught history for 34 years before retiring.

Of the four Schmidt children, Brent and Braxton were grown and on their own. Brandon

Reprinted with permission from “What Will Your Legacy Be ... True Stories of Lives Well Lived,” (WestBow Press, 2017), the ninth book written by the Freedom Foundation’s longtime Legacy Society director, Irene Endicott. It will be released in May 2017.

and Annaliese were still living at home, so Howard and Norma asked them “What do you think?

Should we take him?”

They said yes, and Brandon added, “It will keep you young, Mom and Dad. David can have my room.”

Howard wrote back to the mother, listing 10 conditions for taking David into their home – 10 mandatory requirements to which he thought the mother would never agree.

Shortly, another letter came. David’s mother had happily agreed to all 10 conditions and asked for a date they might arrive a few days before school was to start.

In August, David arrived at the Schmidt home with his mother, who dutifully inspected the room where her son would live. Saschi, whose Christian name is Sarah, earned a Master’s degree in English from the University of South Carolina and is a professor of English in Japan. David’s father, Hidemi, is a television executive. They are members of the Anglican Church in Tokyo and travel extensively.

Mother approved David’s living arrangements and departed for Japan.

So began the American experience for Masato David Yoshimatsu.

Howard and Norma delighted in David almost immediately. The boy was curious about FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 31

everything and questioned them in excellent English.

He was eager to learn and consistently sought out a wide variety of experiences in America.

A typical teen, David required discipline from time to time. There were the fads, such as long hair, and he picked up some slang. Rather than come down too hard on him, Howard and Norma asked for peer counseling for David from Annaliese and Brandon. It worked.

David thrived. He achieved good grades in school and made many friends. During the summer of 1989, along with a French teacher and her husband, Bonnie and Greg Brodd, Howard took 15 students on a fiveweek trip from Paris – on the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution – to the Island of Crete. Along the way, David was afforded leadership opportunities and a new confidence in himself and his abilities emerged.

He developed a very close relationship with Brandon Schmidt, who had played soccer at Sammamish and was recruited to a national soccer camp. Brandon had been voted the most inspirational player on his high school soccer team three years in a row and for an additional three years on the championship team at Santa Clara University.

Howard told his son, Brandon, that of all of his soccer trophies, he was proudest of the most inspirational player awards he had received.

David was in awe of Brandon’s achievements and accompanied the Schmidts to a number of his games at Santa Clara. He tried to emulate Brandon but was not strong physically. He turned out for soccer and didn’t make the team.

He turned out for swimming and made the team but never placed in any meet. Still, he was always there to encourage and inspire his team members to victory.

In his senior year, David earned the most inspirational player award. Knowing the background, when the award was announced, there were more than a few proud tears shed by the Schmidt family.

For David, it was one of the most affirming acknowledgments he had received in his young life.

His academic achievements accumulated steadily in his three years at Sammamish under the watchful eye of his American hosts. Howard Schmidt is a highly regarded Austrian School economist who believes that American history cannot be taught without also teaching an understanding of economics and free markets.

PAGE 32 n FREEDOM MATTERS

He is well known as a demanding teacher who expects the best from his students.

David took Howard’s class in his senior year, always sitting in the back of the room. He received no special favors, no tips on exam questions at home.

He did the work.

That class was a turning point. David didn’t earn an A from his tough teacher, but he approached Howard one evening at home to say, “I want to go to college here in the U.S. where they teach what you teach.”

Saschi and Hidemi approved the idea. David applied to Hillsdale College, Grove City College and George Mason University. Joy abounded in the Schmidt household when the letter of acceptance came from Hillsdale College.

Saschi arrived at the Schmidt home that summer of 1990. She and David loaded up his belongings in an older Volkswagen they had purchased for him, said farewell to the Schmidt’s and mother and son began a harrowing adventure across the country, from Washington state to Michigan that included flat tires and other car trouble.

They arrived at Hillsdale with many stories to tell.

Mother went back to Japan and David settled into his new environment.

David was the only Japanese student on campus and was instantly accepted. He won friends with his sense of humor, his personality and his writing ability. He majored in economics and studied German, the original language of the Austrian free market scholars.

He wrote a regular economics column in the Hillsdale student paper.

His future goals became clear. He earned a 3.5 grade average at the demanding school and looked forward to earning a PhD in economics and becoming a teacher.

The Schmidts welcomed David back home for a seven-day spring vacation in 1993, after which he went back to Japan, thinking of little else but finishing school and moving on with his future. He accepted a summer job at a Tokyo department store.

On July 13, 1993, Saschi went in to wake David for work.

He did not wake up. He would never wake up again.

Their beloved and only son had passed away during the night. An aneurism had stolen David’s promising future.

Saschi called Howard and Norma immediately,

hysterical with grief. The Schmidts, stricken with shock and disbelief, could scarcely comprehend what they were told.

The previous week, they had congratulated David on his 21st birthday.

With heavy hearts, the Schmidts could not travel to attend the memorial service at the Anglican Church in Tokyo. But Howard’s reflections on that spring of 1993 when David spent those precious vacation days with them were a cathartic blessing for him. While he was there, David had made special calls to all of his Sammamish High School friends and visited with many of them. Then he went back to Japan to be with his parents following his sophomore year.

To Howard, it seemed as though David had said goodbye to all of them.

Hillsdale College invited the Yoshimatsus to a special memorial program that fall as students came back to school. David would have graduated in 1995.

Howard and Norma traveled in June of 1995 to the Hillsdale graduation ceremonies where Saschi and Hidemi Yoshimatsu were presented with the degree that David would have earned. Hidemi accepted the degree, held it tightly in his hands with tears streaming down his face.

Hillsdale’s Dr. Richard Ebeling, now a visiting professor of Economics at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., and his wife Anna invited the Yoshimatsus and the Schmidts to their home for a special student recognition social after the ceremony.

In an interview, Professor Ebeling said, “David came to learn about the ideas and ideals of freedom and the free society. His untimely death occurred just a few months before he was to take his first economics class with me at Hillsdale. I had many opportunities to interact with a young man who clearly had a burning passion for liberty and a keen mind, already thinking about markets and economic freedom. Our talks revealed that he both understood and mastered what he had read and he was enthusiastically awaiting the start of more advanced courses.

“It is clear to me that a wonderful, active mind was cut short by his death,” he continued. “I am absolutely certain that David would not only have performed brilliantly in the rest of his undergraduate education, but would have gotten through a graduate program in economics and gone on to a uniquely contributing career.

Economics and the cause of freedom lost a most promising young individual far too soon.”

David had lived in a dorm at Hillsdale. Students there colleted donations and a tree was planted by his window – a David Crabapple with flowers that appear every spring.

The plaque says, “In Memory of Masato David Yoshimatsu.”

The cherished bond of friendship deepened over the

Irene Endicott Irene Endicott has been the Freedom Foundation’s Legacy Society director since 2003, making it a model for other policy organizations around the country.

She is the author of nine books, a nationally recognized consultant, a teacher and speaker, a political activist, a volunteer leader and host of a Christian radio show.

She attended the University of Washington from 1952 to 1955 and has been married to husband Bill Endicott for 49 years. She has four children, three step-children, 13 grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren.

She can be reached at iendicott@wavecable.com years between the Yoshimatsus and the Schmidts.

Both Saschi and Hidemi came to Brandon’s commencement exercises in May 2000 when he received an MBA at the University of Michigan.

When Brandon was married in a mission church in Santa Clara, Saschi came from Japan, dressed in formal kimono for the ceremony. When Brandon’s first son was born, Saschi sent a little Japanese baseball suit. The Yoshimatsus, the Schmidts – including their sons, Braxton and Brandon and his wife Shannon – were hosted at a Hillsdale luncheon in May 2000.

The families are connected forever by the memory of their beloved son.

Howard says, “We continue our long friendship with David’s parents. We all miss that fine young man so very much. We mourn him and we know Sarah and Hidemi will mourn him forever.”

David would have taught and written in the Austrian economic model and in the style of greats such as Von Mises or Hayek. Today, other outstanding young scholars are taking up the torch of liberty, learning, then teaching others how to stand without apology for the free market and freedom as David surely would have done.

“Assuring freedom to the free, we shall nobly save the last best hope of earth; the way is plain which if followed, the world will forever applaud and God will forever bless.”

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Jan. 26, 1863 FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 33

PAGE 34 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Redistribution of

WEALTH? or

THEFT? Liberals love to play the class-envy card to justify penalizing success, but all they want is to serve their special interests

By JAMI LUND

Senior Policy Analyst

B

ank robber Willie Sutton was once asked, “Why do you rob banks?”

He famously answered, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Using the same impeccable logic, there are two main reasons why big-spending lawmakers invariably propose policies that impose higher tax rates on those who – in spite of the difficulties of negotiating a free market coupled with the insatiable appetite of confiscatory government at every level – have managed somehow to achieve a degree of financial success.

First, because wealthy people can write the biggest checks. And second, because it’s always easy to play the class-

envy card and persuade voters to punish those with more than they have.

As the old saying goes, robbing Peter to pay Paul always sounds like a good idea to Paul – and there are a whole lot more Pauls than Peters in this world.

Of course it wasn’t supposed to be this way.

In a civil society, the most formidable power is that which deprives people of life and property. The Founding Fathers of the country were keenly aware of this based on their experience with the monarchy of England and envisioned a system under which government would be properly restrained.

The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and the Constitution are all designed to constrain the use of government’s power to harm or plunder citizens.

The use of government power is checked by the separation of power and the

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 35

obligation to heed the Constitution, when he prophesied, “The American which governs even government Republic will endure until the day itself.

Congress discovers that it can The founders believed indibribe the public with the public’s viduals should be left free to money.” pursue happiness unless or The hyperbole justifying until their actions infringed this policy of targeted plunon the natural rights of dering does not attempt others. To the extent civil to suggest the equality obligations are imposed of treatment under law on people, they are immatters. Instead the hazy posed equally, as befits concept of “fairness” is a philosophy that all are cited – most specifically, created equal. “fairness for working Virtually every state families.” constitution echoes the Tax plans that penalsame language. Likeize earners at a uniform “To take from one because it is thought that his own wise, the notion of people rate, meanwhile, are industry, and that of his father’s, has acquired being equal in the eyes of derided as “unfair” or the law is also codified. “regressive.” too much in order to spare to others, who, or whose Washington state’s Make no mistake, sinfathers, have not exercised equal industry and constitution, for example, gling those who’ve earned skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle contains a host of these promore than you have for a of association - the guarantee to everyone visions reflecting an underunique new tax is intentional of a free exercise of his industry and standing of the need to restrain – as though hard work, riskgovernment. taking and shrewd investment the fruits acquired by it.”

“No law,” it reads, “shall be were behaviors to be discouraged THOMAS JEFFERSON passed granting to any citizen, class while sloth and bad life choices are of citizens or corporation other than rewarded. municipal, privileges or immunities Such laws necessarily require the which upon the same terms shall establishment of arbitrary lines of not equally belong to all citizens, or all who purchase gasoline under the demarcation. Those on one side of corporations.” same terms are taxed equally. the line – for example those who’ve In other words, “targeted” tax In recent years, however, the clear earned up to $25,000 in capital gains plans under which some individuals understanding of principles applying – may not be taxed, while someone are treated differently based purely to the confiscation of property has who’s earned a dollar more is. on their accumulated wealth are been eroded considerably. Some look Both individuals took the same not only immoral, but they are also on the possessions of their neighbors action, but one owes money to the illegal. with envy and call for likeminded public treasury while the other does Not that politicians – and the people to band together to seek the not. special interests they represent – collective plundering of some of their Importantly, those pushing for don’t try their best to ignore these fellow citizens. punitive tax plans never come right words.

The new rhetoric of the Left is out and say those whose incomes The body of state and U.S. laws unashamed to disregard equality they intend to redistribute have done certainly do permit some citizens to and to selectively confiscate for their anything to be punished for – but the have their property confiscated on Utopian “greater good.” inference is clear nonetheless. a specific basis when their actions The memory of the King of EngWhy else in a sane world would justify a fee or a charge. land’s men confiscating from Amerisomeone be subject to having his or For example, permits, fees and cans to meet their needs has long her wealth confiscated dispropormitigation costs are regularly imfaded. Now the merits of the causes tionately unless for some reason posed on those seeking some special they wish to fund justifies actions they weren’t entitled to it in the first accommodation or privilege. Similarwhich were once considered an atroc- place? ly, the purchase of a gallon of gas is ity.

The rhetoric accompanying these taxed to mitigate the cost of infraAlexis de Tocqueville saw this calls for targeted taxation offer some structure and externalities, but coming more than 200 years ago insights behind the thinking for sePAGE 36 n FREEDOM MATTERS

lecting some of the flock to be shorn while leaving the rest whole.

For example, the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, a left-of-center advocacy group championing the addition of a capital gains tax, writes glowingly of a tax that, “… would almost exclusively affect only the richest 2 percent of Washingtonians.”

Another liberal interest group, the Economic Opportunity Institute, applauds singling out the wealthy as a unique revenue source in pursuit of a utopian ideal: “. . . democracy is supposed to present “I think when you spread the wealth opportunity for all of us, it makes sense to tax some around, it’s good for everybody.” of the wealthiest in our state BARACK OBAMA (and, indeed, the world) to finance a stronger future for everyone.”

Why? Have they exploited someone or perpetrated a negative impact on society?

The assumption undergirding such a philosophy – assuming any reasoning is applied at all – is that revenue is a limited commodity and, if someone is poor, it means a wealthy person has helped himself to someone else’s portion of the economic pie.

But of course that ignores completely the reality that money isn’t limited and the size of the pie can always be grown to accommodate another millionaire.

Taxing the wealthy with unique taxes isn’t intended to curtail behavior that violates the interest of society. It’s not intended to penalize wrongdoing. It isn’t even intended to capture resources to compensate for negative impacts caused by the activities generating the gain.

If it was intended to do those

things, it would be targeted to those activities or behaviors.

We need look no further than the text of a 2016 ballot initiative to tax high earners in Olympia, Wash., to explain the thought process of the wealth-punishers: “Whereas wealthy residents take advantage of and use a greater proportion of certain city services than do less wealthy residents. These services include without limitation police protection from theft, city utilities, educational programs, neighborhood improvement projects, property protection and other municipal services. . . . it is appropriate to assess taxes on the disproportionate use by wealthy residents of certain municipal services …”

Upon examination this proves untrue. The very fact that the cham-

pions of expanded government functions want more money shows that the beneficiaries of the new government spending are not those being taxed.

If the beneficiaries of these funds were the wealthy, the logical response would be to allow them to pay for these services for themselves.

Even a cursory examination of government spending makes it obvious that expenditures overwhelmingly are on behalf of lowincome people, and often specifically exclude high earners from receiving the benefits.

Programs like welfare, food subsidies, tuition assistance, low-income K-12 education programs, healthcare subsidies, childcare and a host of smaller, helpful programs are earmarked exclusively for the neediest.

These may be critical societal supports and necessary in a modern world, but they contradict any claim that the wealthy use a greater proportion of public services.

When all the layers of the onion are peeled back, all that’s left is special interest – including the most pervasive of all, the desire to grow government for government’s sake.

There’s a reason five of the wealthiest 10 ZIP codes in America are in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., meanwhile poverty is just as bad as – if not worse than – it was when LBJ launched his Great Society programs 50 years ago.

Wealth confiscated from those who rightfully earned it does a poor job of finding its way into the hands of those from whom we were told it was intended. But it does an outstanding job of enriching those who operate the massive and growing machinery of redistribution.

If you didn’t know better, you’d almost swear that was the plan all along.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 37

ACTION TIMELINE

Highlighting a few of the Freedom Foundation’s signature accomplishments over the past half year Dec. 1: n Teachers throughout Washington state are sent a reminder that the window for opting out of the teachers’ union is opening for another year. The letter noted: “If you’d like WEA and NEA to return your money, fill out this document and send it to the union today. Under this plan, you’ll still be paying a representation fee to the union, so you can still receive those services. But the union has to refund the portion it spends on political activities You will receive an accounting of how WEA and NEA spend money, and will receive a check for $200 to $400 in the spring.”

Dec. 6: n An article written by Freedom Foundation CEO Tom McCabe is published on the Real Clear Politics website. Headlined “How Union Bosses Sold Out Their Workers,” the piece explains that 2016 was the first full election cycle following the introduction of right-to-work and other legislation targeting public-sector unions in Wisconsin and Michigan.

workers to give themselves a dues refund as a Christmas present this year. The stunt prompts an improvised – and extremely animated – meeting of SEIU 503 members.

Dec. 14: n The Freedom Foundation presents SEIU 775 with an early and unwelcome Christmas gift – a complaint filed with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office.

The complaint, which cites wrongdoing going back as much as five years, alleges the union qualifies as a political committee but hasn’t adhered to reporting requirements a political committee must under Washington state campaign finance laws.

Jan. 4: n The Freedom Foundation has two articles published in national publications on similar subjects. The Hill published an op-ed by Managing Editor Jeff Rhodes and the New Hampshire Union-Leader the following day ran a guest opinion by CEO Tom McCabe. Both noted that Donald Trump’s victory in the November presidential election owed much to his unexpected success in Wisconsin and Michigan – both states that had recently passed right-to-work legislation.

Dec. 8: n The Freedom Foundation files a 45-day letter asking the Washington State Attorney General’s Office to investigate and file suit against labor unions for using their pro-Initiative 1501 political action committee to illegally move money around to at least one other PAC. The complaint is based on a $47,500 transfer from SEIU’s pro-1501 PAC, the “Campaign to Prevent Fraud and Protect Seniors,” to the “Know Your Ballot PAC.”

Jan 9: n The Washington State Legislature’s 2017 session gets under way. Freedom Foundation policy analysts Max Nelsen and Jami Lund are hard at work lobbying for needed labor reforms while former Freedom Foundation Advancement Associate Vicki Kraft assumes her newly won seat as state representative from Washington’s 17th District.

Dec. 12: n The Freedom Foundation staff in Oregon station a Santa Claus outside state office buildings in Salem urging government

Jan. 12 n The Freedom Foundation works with the Pacific Northwest Child Care Association’s (PNWCCA) in its campaign to

PAGE 38 n FREEDOM MATTERS

decertify SEIU 925, which has already lost more than half of its membership in the past two years, and replace it with a small, locally focused organization more concerned with the concerns of local childcare providers than it is will advancing a liberal political agenda.

Jan. 16: n The Freedom Foundation files a PDC complaint against WFSE, alleging the public-employee union failed to list itself as a political organization and did not report $2.7 million in campaign donations.

Jan. 17: n Freedom Foundation staff members attend Lincoln County’s first open-tothe-public collective bargaining session.

The county’s commissioners, working with the Freedom Foundation, last fall passed a resolution – the first of its kind in Washington – vowing to make all of its contract negotiations public.

Feb. 6: n The Freedom Foundation began running a series of ads on local cable systems telling the compelling of Calvin Ravencraft. A resident of Battle Ground, Ravencraft is compensated by Medicaid in return for providing 24/7 care for his daughter. Ravencraft contacted SEIU 775 last October and requested it stop confiscating monthly – which amount to over 3 percent of his gross pay.

Feb, 8: n The Freedom Foundation files a lawsuit against Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services alleging the agency routinely violates the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act by deducting millions of dollars from government employees that find their way into political campaigns. The money deducted by DSHS

is forwarded to SEIU 775, the union representing the workers, as monthly dues. SEIU then uses millions of those dollars as political contributions. The Freedom Foundation filed a complaint with the state Attorney General’s Office in September. Because the AG declined to act on the allegations, the Freedom Foundation can now file its own lawsuit.

Feb. 13: n Attorneys for Teamsters Local 690 announce they will not appeal an earlier ruling issued by the Washington Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) in favor of Lincoln County after commissioners there approved a resolution to open collective bargaining sessions to the public.

The Teamsters filed a notice of appeal on Jan. 30, but sent a two-sentence letter to PERC Director Mike Sellars in February withdrawing that appeal.

Feb. 21: n HB 2609 is stopped in its tracks in the Oregon Legislature when lawmakers hear testimony from the Freedom Foundation about how it would hand get-out-ofjail-free cards to one of the state’s most powerful government labor unions. HB 2609 would rewrite – or in some cases, simply eliminate – several laws shown to have been broken in a recent lawsuit filed against SEIU 503.

Feb. 23: n Freedom Foundation litigation counsel David Dewhirst argues before the Washington State Supreme Court a lawsuit filed by caregiver Miranda Thorpe, who claims Washington’s Department of Social & Health Services deducted union dues from her paycheck despite her never having signed a membership card or authorized the deductions. The case challenges the so-called “opt-out” scheme adopted by

Leave a legacy of freedom 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 the union in the wake of the Harris v. Quinn ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court making union participation optional for caregivers.

March 1: n Litigation Counsel Stephanie Olson explains to an appellate court in Tacoma why SEIU 775 was mistaken in its contention that the world would end if the Freedom Foundation were permitted to tell the union’s members the truth about their constitutional rights. The case involves the Freedom Foundation’s attempts for more than a year to obtain the schedule used by the state for caregiver orientation. At these mandatory meetings, SEIU 775 is given time to pressure new home healthcare providers

into locking themselves into nearly irrevocable payroll deductions to the union.

March 8: n Attorneys for the Freedom Foundation joined forces with the Washington, D.C.-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to file a federal lawsuit to prevent the forced unionization of Uber and Lyft drivers in Seattle.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of 11 independent contractors working with the two for-hire ride-sharing services. It alleges an ordinance passed by the city of Seattle in 2015 illegally targets independent workers for compulsory representation by the United Brotherhood of Teamsters.

March 8: n The TownHall.com website publishes a feature about the Freedom Foundation headlined “SEIU and Government Unions Are Now Having Their Tactics Used Against Them.” “Fortunately for those of us who don’t like government corruption,” writes author Beth Baumann, “there are people – and organizations – that are willing to take on the unions.”

March 8: n Attorneys for the Freedom Foundation join forces with the Washington, D.C.based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to file a federal lawsuit to prevent the forced unionization of Uber and Lyft drivers in Seattle. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of 11 independent contractors working with the two for-hire ride-sharing services. It alleges an ordinance passed by the city of Seattle in 2015 illegally targets independent workers for compulsory representation by the United Brotherhood of Teamsters.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 39

Non-Profit Organization U.S Postage

PAID

PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 (360) 956-3482

Olympia, WA Permit No. 462