Living liberty feb 2016

LIVINGLIBERTY

W F S E C A U G H T C O N C E A L I N G $ 2 .7 M I L L I O N [ 4 ] F R E E D O M F O U N D AT I O N L E G I S L AT I V E A G E N D A [ 6 ] S E AT T L E S C H O O L ‘ C R I S I S ’ [ 1 0 ]

A PUBLICATION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION | FEBRUARY 2017

OPEN UP & LET US WATCH Lincoln County, with Freedom Foundation’s help, pioneers open contract negotiations

Electronic Service Requested

Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507

L

incoln County on Jan. 17 snapped a long losing streak for Washington state, becoming the first jurisdiction in more years than anyone can remember to hold its collective bargaining negotiations in the light of day rather than behind closed doors.

Commissioners Mark Stedman, Scott Hutsell and Rob Coffman unanimously passed a resolution last fall promising taxpayers they’d be able to watch as their hard-earned dollars were haggled over by the unions representing county workers.

Predictably, their good intentions were immediately challenged by Teamsters Local 690, which filed a complaint with the state’s Public Employee Review Commission. The union obviously had something to hide from the public and its members, and the complaint was supported by other labor leaders across the state who feared the concept of open government might one day spread to their county, too.

But on Jan. 12, Jennifer Bradley, PERC’s unfair labor practices manager, dismissed the case, noting that, “The complaints do not contain sufficiently specific facts to support allegations of discrimination, unilateral change or refusal to bargain.”

By MATT HAYWARD, Outreach Coordinator

The Teamsters can now appeal the matter to the Public Employees Relations Commission as a whole. If they lose there, they could file a lawsuit in court, but both options seem like longshots.

In the meantime, the commissioners wasted no time putting out the welcome mat for Lincoln County’s ongoing contract talks.

The Freedom Foundation was there from the beginning for the commissioners, working with them on a model resolution, offering advice on what to expect when it came to legal challenges and answering strategic questions.

The Freedom Foundation also provided testimony on the day the resolution was passed, did public opinion polling and was on hand to witness Washington’s first-ever open collective bargaining negotiations.

Freedom Foundation attorney David Dewhirst, a board member of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, also used the occasion to present the commissioners with the organization’s Key Award for transparency.

“Without the Freedom Foundation this would never have happened,” Coffman said.

Coffman said a transparency resolution made sense for Lincoln County because, not only is it the right thing to do morally, but the community is also facing some tough spending decisions in the coming years, and voters might be more supportive of the process if they’re actually permitted to watch it.

With all three commissioners being Republicans, it’s likely there was always an appropriately adversarial relationship between the board and the union. But that’s often not the case in jurisdictions where elected Democrats ostensibly represent the public’s interest even though they may have accepted generous See LINCOLN COUNTY Page 10

[2]

VOLUME 28 | ISSUE 2

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

CONTENTS

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

PAGE 4

PAGE 3 LEADERSHIP MEMO

LITIGATION UPDATE

By TOM McCABE Reprinted from the NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION-LEADER

By TOM McCABE We Were Battling Union Against Oppression Long Before it Was Cool.

Publisher: Tom McCabe

Now is the Time for Labor Reforms in New Hampshire.

PAGE 5

Editor: Jeff Rhodes

Union Lie of the Month

CONTACT

By Jeff Rhodes Unions Claim, But LITIGATION UPDATE

Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507

(360) 956-3482 myFreedomFoundation.com

“Quote” ~ of the month ~

Don’t Deserve, Credit

AG Complaint Alleges WFSE for Popular Workplace

Failed to Report $2.7 Million.

Reforms.

By JEFF RHODES

PAGES 6-7

By JEFF RHODES Reprinted from the SEATTLE TIMES Right-to-Work Ruling Could Gut Public-Sector Unions.

The Freedom Foundation Fights for its Legislative Priorities for 2017.

What We Want PAGE 8 OREGON UPDATE

By ANNE MARIE GURNEY Bill Would Exempt Bad Veterinarians from Public Records Searches.

By ANNE MARIE GURNEY Reprinted from The Oregonian Brown Shouldn’t Oversee Proposed Public Records Advocate.

G RE G M O U RA D

Vice President for Legislation National Right to Work Committee

“

“When Kentucky voters chose a pro-Right-to-Work governor a few week ago, they sent a clear message. It’s wrong to force Kentucky workers to pay tribute to union bosses just for the privilege of earning a living.

Many workers in Kentucky still face economic hardship and they recognize that a Right-to-Work law would bring a much needed boost to Kentucky’s economy.

”

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

PAGE 10

PAGE 9 BEST OF THE BLOG

By JAMI LUND If Seattle’s Schools are in Crisis, It Was the Teachers’ Union That Caused It.

By MAXFORD NELSEN Freedom Foundation Complaint Leads to Another AG Lawsuit Against Labor Unions.

What They Said ...

What They Meant

PAGE 11

ACTION TIMELINE

LEGACY OF FREEDOM

By JEFF RHODES Han Tapped to Direct Freedom Foundation California Operations.

By IRENE ENDICOTT Why Should You Attend a Freedom Foundation Planning for Life Event?

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

3

WE WERE BATTLING UNI0N OPPRESSION

LONG BEFORE IT WAS COOL

T

he Freedom Foundation is not only leading the fight against the abuses of pubic-sector unions in Washington and Oregon, but it’s increasingly recognized as the nation’s authority on how to curb these abuses and why it’s important to extend the struggle to other states.

This past month, a guest opinion authored by Freedom Foundation Managing Editor Jeff Rhodes appeared in The Hill – a Washington, D.C.-based newspaper covering national politics. A day later, the New Hampshire Union-Leader published an op-ed I wrote.

Trust me, there will be many more such articles as right-to-work protections become a huge national story over the coming year and the Freedom Foundation evolves into the go-to organization for the media and other public policy groups on this controversial issue.

In the Hill article, headlined “(Donald) Trump’s wins in Wisconsin, Michigan expose labor’s soft underbelly,” Rhodes noted that the new president’s most surprising – and arguably most important – wins on election night came in a pair of states that had passed right-to-work legislation since the last national election.

It was no coincidence.

“In the interim,” Rhodes noted, “thousands took advantage of the opportunity by opting out, blowing a huge hole in the revenue stream organized labor is accustomed to sharing with its Democratic friends.”

Likewise, my article in the Union-Leader also cited the experience of Wisconsin and Michigan, encouraging the GOP majority in both houses of New Hampshire’s Legislature to adopt similar labor reforms.

“The message is clear in the Granite State,” it read. “Let New Hampshire workers keep their hard-earned money and free them from mandatory union membership and you will be rewarded at the polls.”

It’s a strong message, and no one in the country articulates it better than the Freedom Foundation.

That’s because no one has been doing it longer or more passionately.

Unlike late converts to the movement anxious to jump on the bandwagon either because they like to be on the winning side or they want to cozy up to generous donors like yourself, the Freedom Foundation was waging war against the unions long before it was fashionable.

Up until fairly recently, in fact, raising money to battle unions was often a tough sell – not because our friends didn’t understand how thoroughly organized labor had infiltrated every facet of their lives and how destructive its Big Government/higher taxes/more regulations agenda was to their freedoms, but because there seemed little chance of taking down an entrenched Goliath.

But three years after adopting our simple, direct Union Transparency and Reform Project, the Freedom Foundation has

perfected a model other states are either copying or asking us to implement for them.

By TOM McCABE, CEO Because it works.

In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn ruled that Medicaid-compensated home healthcare and childcare providers couldn’t be compelled to pay union dues or fees, more than 60 percent of the childcare workers represented by SEIU 925 have cut ties with the union.

Members of SEIU 775 would have defected just as readily if we’d been able to inform them of their rights, too, but its leaders wasted two years and millions of their members’ hard-earned dollars fighting a losing battle to keep them in the dark.

We finally got the names last summer of healthcare providers represented by SEIU 775, and more than 5,000 of them have opted out in just the past five months.

But you haven’t seen anything yet.

With Donald Trump’s unforeseen (at least by the mainstream media) election as president, the U.S. Supreme Court will almost certainly maintain its conservative majority and revisit the issue of mandatory unionization raised last year in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association sooner rather than later.

Maybe Congress, with Republican majorities in both houses, will pass a federal right-to-work law before the court gets around to it. Or possibly an agency now run by a Trump appointee will adopt a new regulation that imposes right-to-work administratively.

But however and whenever it comes, there’s no longer any question workers are on the road to freedom, and the liberal candidates and causes that have grown fat for generations on dues money siphoned from people who didn’t want to give it will have to start looking for another meal ticket.

These are heady days for all of us in the freedom business, but it’s also a time to redouble our efforts and remain vigilant.

No one knows better than we do that desperate people do desperate things, and just because the laws change doesn’t mean the unions will suddenly start following them.

They won’t, but that’s where the Freedom Foundation comes in. No group in the country has done more to bring these changes about, and none will work harder to ensure the unions never again hold sway over its institutions.

LEADERSHIP

MEMO

LIVING LIBERTY

“

No group in the country has done more to bring about these changes, and none will work harder to ensure the unions never again hold sway over its institutions.

”

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

SUPPORT THE FIGHT!

The Freedom Foundation is the only organization in the Pacific Northwest that

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

COMPLETE AND MAIL THE REPLY ENVELOPE

4

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

IN THE NEWS NOW IS THE TIME FOR LABOR REFORMS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

By TOM McCABE

Reprinted from the NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER Jan. 5, 2016

S

hortly after taking office with Republican majorities in 2011, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker set out to address the state’s budget crisis by reforming a major cost driver of the state’s enormous deficit. Exploding public employee compensation, pensions and healthcare costs were the inevitable result of collective bargaining between powerful government unions and the politicians they helped elect.

Liberals thought Walker and his GOP allies had given them a gift that would mobilize their base and return Democrats to power in Madison, so they attempted to send Walker packing in a recall election.

But a funny thing happened. Walker was re-elected by a margin greater than his original victory. In the meantime, government employees abandoned the unions in droves. Private-sector workers followed suit after Walker and Republicans passed right-to-work legislation in 2015.

Similar scenes were repeated in Michigan.

With their dues-financed political war chests decimated, union boss clout withered and Donald Trump became the first Republican since Reagan to win both states. And it was relatively strong support from union households that helped deliver those victories to Trump.

The message is clear in the Granite State. Let New Hampshire workers keep their hard-earned money and free them from mandatory union membership, and you will be rewarded at the polls.

At the Freedom Foundation, we know from our personal conversations with workers that most would prefer to keep the money they currently pay to their union rather than let the leadership spend it in support of politicians and causes with whom they disagree.

Since we began informing workers in Washington state of their right to opt out of union dues, more than 9,300 have chosen to do just that, costing the local SEIU more than $10 million that would otherwise be spent largely on partisan politicking.

Now, the window of opportunity has been flung wide open for a range of state legislative fixes that could restore the rights of millions of public employees all across the country, while reining in the undue influence government unions have had over state budgets and the political process at every level for generations.

In New Hampshire, with Republicans in control of both legislative chambers and incoming Gov. Chris Sununu, the road is clear to enact real, pro-worker, pro-taxpayer union reforms.

States around the country can break the grip of union bosses on state government and put power back in the hands of workers with these four bold actions: n Workers’ voting rights. Once certified it’s all but impossible to remove a union, no matter how unpopular it may be with its members. Most currently unionized public employees

have never had the opportunity to vote on union representation, having simply inherited a pre-existing union. Public employees should be able to vote regularly on the union’s fitness to represent them. n Right-to-work and free agency.

Public employees can be fired for refusing to pay union dues. Passing right to work and allowing public employees to choose whether to join a union and pay dues without fear of losing their job is an important step in the right direction.

So is allowing workers to negotiate terms of employment with their employer directly as free agents. n Collective bargaining transparency.

Government unions and public employers are allowed to negotiate contracts behind closed doors.

That would be wrong under any circumstances, but it’s all the more so when the union leaders are negotiating with politicians they helped put in office.

Both taxpayers and union members deserve to see how those negotiations play out. n Ending release time.

Government union contracts often require public employers to pay the salary of union officials.

This giveaway of tax dollars is indefensible.

Taxpayers should never be forced to pay the salary of someone working for the union. That’s what union dues are for.

Voters across the country, including large numbers in union households, have put Republicans in power because they are fed up with the old way of doing business in Washington, D.C., and in state capitols from coast to coast.

Republicans in New Hampshire can show that they got the message.

Tom McCabe is the chief executive officer of the Freedom Foundation, a non-profit, public policy research organization founded in 1991.

RIGHT-TO-WORK RULING COULD GUT PUBLIC-SECTOR UNIONS

By JEFF RHODES

Reprinted from the SEATTLE TIMES Jan. 11, 2016

O

ver the vocal objections of organized labor leaders and the liberal lawmakers whose strings they pull, right-to-work protections are coming to Washington.

To be sure, the revolution will come from the federal government rather than expecting Washington to clean up its own act, but that won’t make the mandate any less necessary or enforceable.

Washington’s teachers and municipal employees were first required to join a labor union as a condition of employment in the 1960s, and the same requirements were applied to all state workers in 2002.

Over the years, several U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Davenport v. WEA, Harris v. Quinn, etc.) have weakened the unions’ death grip on public-sector employees, and just over half the states have subsequently adopted right-towork legislation that empowers government workers to decide for themselves whether or not to pay dues or fees to the union designated to represent them.

Washington, however, isn’t one of them, so for all intents and purposes, public employees here must still choose between losing their jobs and handing over a portion of their wages each month to a private entity whose ideals and political agenda they may or may not share.

That came within an eyelash of changing last January, when the U.S. Supreme Court took

up the case of several California teachers who argued their First Amendment rights were being abridged by requirements that they pay dues or fees to the state teachers’ union.

A ruling in the teachers’ favor would have created right-to-work protections for the entire nation, and the court appeared poised to do just that. But only weeks after hearing oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia — one of the conservative members expected to vote with the majority — died unexpectedly, leaving the court deadlocked at 4-4.

Had Hillary Clinton been elected president instead of Trump, her choice to replace Scalia undoubtedly would have helped create a new liberal majority on the court, effectively taking right-to-work off the table for generations.

Instead, assuming Trump keeps his word and nominates a Scalia clone, right-to-work could well be the law of the land before the end of the year.

What would that mean for Washington? One need look no further than Wisconsin and Michigan for a real-world example.

Once considered among the most reliably Democratic states in the union, both went for Trump this year for the first time since the 1980s.

Not coincidentally, 2016 was also the first presidential election year since both passed rightto-work legislation.

Let’s see how unassailable the liberal agenda is when it no longer has a bottomless well of someone else’s money to help sell it.

Newly freed workers in Wisconsin and Michigan voted with their feet and opted out in record numbers, severely limiting the amount of money the unions could donate to the Clinton campaign as well as the number of “volunteers” it could enlist to get out the vote.

To the casual observer, Washington’s longstanding liberal majority appears impervious to challenge. But just two months ago, we’d have said the same thing about Wisconsin and Michigan.

Money is the mother’s milk of politics, and regardless of whether right-to-work comes from a Supreme Court ruling, a bill passed by a Congress now solidly in Republican hands or an administrative regulation written by a Trump appointee, it’s going to have the same effect here — and in every other state — we saw on election night.

Let’s see how unassailable the liberal agenda is when it no longer has a bottomless well of someone else’s money to help sell it.

Jeff Rhodes is managing editor of the Freedom Foundation.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

5

LITIGATION UPDATE AG COMPLAINT ALLEGES WFSE FAILED TO REPORT $2.7 MILLION

T

he Washington Federation of State Employees, “one of the most prolific political actors in the state” of Washington, is the subject of a new campaign finance complaint alleging it violated state election reporting laws with respect to $2.7 million in campaign activity.

The complaint, filed on Jan. 16 by the Freedom Foundation, condemns WFSE’s “multi-year attempt to operate what amounts to a shadow-PAC outside the public eye.”

It was just the latest salvo in a continuing, one-sided exchange of public disclosure complaints between the Freedom Foundation and unions representing public employees in Washington. The previous Friday, in fact, the Northwest Accountability Project – a nonprofit shell corporation formed by several labor organizations for the sole purpose of smearing the Freedom Foundation – filed its own complaint with the Washington Attorney General’s Office.

In it, the unions allege the Freedom Foundation functioned as a political committee without reporting as such last fall when it expressed opinions in opposition to Initiative 1, the failed Olympia income tax ballot measure.

“There’s a big difference between their complaints and ours,” said Max Nelsen, the Freedom Foundation’s labor policy director. “Ours are factual and theirs are bogus. That’s why our complaints against them consistently result in penalties while we’ve never been found guilty of wrongdoing.”

The Freedom Foundation complaint against WFSE claims the union maintained a political fund without registering it as a political commit-

tee with the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) While the fund is registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a “political organization,” it did not report its contributions and expenditures to the PDC. The distinguishing characteristic of all political committees is that they either solicit or spend money to further political campaigns.

The Freedom Foundation did neither, while IRS documents indicate WFSE gave $2.7 million to a variety of liberal causes and candidates in Washington between 2012 and 2016.

“The curious thing is that during that same time period, the fund only reported receiving $4,100 in donations to the IRS,” Nelsen said, “and it all came from one source – WFSE Local 443. All the other contributions to the fund were unreported to either the PDC or the IRS.” Nelsen also noted WFSE’s political expenditures almost certainly exceed the $2.7 million reported to the IRS.

By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor

“The IRS doesn’t require a political organization to disclose its independent expenditures or ‘in-kind’ donations of free labor or other non-monetary gifts,” he said. “But state PDC laws require them to disclose everything, and they didn’t.”

The Attorney General’s Office has 45 days from the date the complaint was lodged to file a lawsuit against WFSE. If it declines to do so, the Freedom Foundation can file its own lawsuit in Superior Court.

“In our experience, the AG generally responds to our complaints by filing suit against the unions,” said Freedom Foundation Managing Attorney Greg Overstreet.

“He certainly doesn’t want to take his friends and benefactors to court, but he knows we’ll be a lot rougher on them than he will. We won’t accept a settlement that lets the unions get off paying pennies on the dollar the way he does.”

In the past two years, the Freedom Foundation has filed five separate PDC complaints against labor unions and their allies that have resulted in Attorney General litigation and fines.

An additional six cases are currently being investigated and litigated by the Attorney General’s office.

“It’s not a coincidence that their complaints are baseless while ours strike oil,” Overstreet said.

“Their complaints against us are pure harassment.

Meanwhile we keep catching them in the act of deceiving the state and their own membership about the extent of their political activity.

“Screwing up once is a mistake,” he said. “But making the same mistake 10 times is a pattern of behavior that shows intent, and we’re determined to hold the unions accountable for their actions.”

UNIONS DON’T DESERVE CREDIT FOR MAJOR LABOR REFORMS

L

abor unions don’t just lie about the Freedom Foundation. They also lie about themselves.

If you’ve been on Facebook, for example, a liberal friend may have posted a meme that gives organized labor credit for such conventions as the 40-hour work week, paid vacations, lunch breaks, overtime pay and many more, implying that, absent unions, workers would enjoy none of these.

But that’s a lie.

Leaving aside the question whether all the “positive” gains attributed to unions – which also include mandatory paid sick leave, minimum wages and publicly funded pensions, to name just three – are the unqualified successes they’re represented to be, there’s still the awkward historical fact that unions didn’t bring them into existence.

Consider the weekend. According to revisionist history, we’d all be working seven days a week were it not for courageous union members standing up to the Industrial Age’s robber barons.

And yet no person is more responsible for the innovation than Henry Ford – among the most reviled of these.

Ford, like any good capitalist, wanted first and foremost to make money. But it’s hard to do so when your best workers are constantly leaving for other jobs the minute you get them trained.

So in 1914, Ford announced plans to more than double the minimum daily pay for his workers from $2.34 a day to $5 a day. He also established a work week consisting of five eight-hour days.

Others before him had proposed doing so, or demanded it be done, but Ford was the first large-scale industrialist to embrace the idea, and

Union Lie of the Month

he did it voluntarily. That’s indisputable.

No union. No government regulation. Just a shrewd entrepreneur responding to forces in the free market.

Another example is the perk of “employer-paid” health insurance.

Quite obviously no one’s employer is paying for this coverage out of their own pocket. He or she is simply setting aside a portion of the worker’s total compensation to cover the premiums for an insurance plan of the employer’s choosing.

And while it’s arguably true a company with hundreds of potential clients can negotiate a better deal than anyone could as an individual, it’s demonstrably true that creating the illusion someone else is paying for their healthcare encourages consumers to make the kind of irresponsible choices that inflate medical costs.

But whatever you think about “company-provided” health insurance, it’s absolutely false that unions deserve the credit (or blame) for it.

In fact, up until halfway through the 20th Century most Americans fully expected to pay their doctor bills out of savings. And if they had insurance at all, they bought it for themselves.

That changed during World War II, when a severe shortage of workers forced companies to get more creative in their compensation and benefit packages.

Once again, the driving factor was market forces – supply and demand – rather than caterwauling from the unions.

Which isn’t to suggest the unions didn’t want these concessions or were sorry to get them.

Organized labor certainly played a role – especially in the early part of the last century, when workplace conditions were undeniably harsh and needed reform. But just because union leaders wanted and advocated for change doesn’t mean they were the sole reason it happened.

Labor unions deserve credit (or blame) for raising these issues and fighting to make them a reality, but in more than a few cases it’s just as likely labor agitation actually delayed the advent of workplace reforms that might have come sooner had nature been allowed to take its course.

That’s something we can never know. But what we do know with absolute certainty is that modern labor unions – particularly those representing government workers – have next to nothing in common with the predecessors whose history they appropriate so brazenly.

Even if the labor leaders of yesteryear didn’t win every battle, at least they were generally fighting for necessary workplace improvements.

That’s a far cry from today’s public-sector unions, which function as little more than an ATM for liberal candidates and causes while representing workers typically far better off than the taxpayers who pay their salaries.

It’s bad enough for modern unions claim credit for work they didn’t do. But it’s even worse when they invoke someone else’s noble accomplishments to justify an agenda that’s anything but.

6

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

Bills of Interest

Measures the Freedom Foundation is supporting in the 2017 Washington state legislative session.

SB-5339, HB-1007 Prime Sponsors: Sen. O’Ban, Rep. Shea Accommodates the civil rights of religious objectors to mandatory payments to labor organizations.

HB-1143 Prime Sponsor: Rep. Manweller Requires hours of work, work schedules, and work schedule changes to apply equally to both unionized and nonunionized employers.

HB-1006 Prime Sponsor: Rep. Shea Prohibits a person, employer or labor organization, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, from requiring a person to: (1) Refrain from voluntary membership in a labor organization or from financially supporting a labor organization; (2) Become or remain a member of a labor organization; or (3) Pay any dues, fees, or other charges to a labor organization or any funds to a charity or other third-party organization in lieu of paying dues or fees to a labor organization.

SB – 5371 Prime Sponsor: Sen. Becker Increases transparency and financial disclosure of public sector unions’ finances.

SB – 5174 Prime Sponsor: Sen. Angel Allows the attorney general or an injured person to bring a civil action, under the consumer protection act, against a labor organization for engaging in an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

HB - 1035 Prime Sponsor: Rep. Manweller Digest: Ensuring the accuracy of prevailing wage survey data provided by interested parties.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

What We Want As the 2017 legislative session begins, the Freedom Foundation is working for bills that promote free markets, limited government

A

liberty.

s always, the Freedom Foundation is committed to limited, accountable government, the free enterprise system and individual

A future that includes limited, accountable government has been thwarted by the power brokers on the Left who seek to use government to prop up their favorite money machine – government unions.

The picture they paint is of a humble grassroots movement of workers who speak out in the interest of secure, safer workplaces and better wages.

The reality is that government unions are a moneymaking industry that buys and sells politicians who, in turn, stack the deck in favor of government union cash flow and power.

The Freedom Foundation’s job during the legislative session is to identify and to oppose the many special privileges politicians have given – and continue to give – labor unions which hand these bosses undue influence over the cost, breadth and accountability of Washington state government.

The 2017 legislative session, which got under way earlier this month, provides yet another opportunity to put these unions on defense and to pull back the curtain on the unjust laws that prop up their corrupting influence on government.

So far, Freedom Foundation staffers have worked with lawmakers to highlight six areas where the laws damage workers’ rights, true competition and taxpayers.

• Consumer protection for union-represented employees (Senate Bill 5174) The state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) provides important legal protections for consumers against the financial interests of commercial ventures, but labor unions are currently exempt from the CPA. Why? Unions are fundamentally a financial enterprise in the business of selling workplace representation services. The Freedom Foundation regularly interacts with employees who have been lied to or deceived about their rights regarding union membership and dues payment.

In order to protect consumers of workplace representation services, the CPA’s protections against “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” should be applied to labor organizations.

• Union workers voting rights Under current law, it’s extreme-

By JAMI LUND, Senior Policy Analyst

ly difficult for public employees to change or get rid of their union. Although unions claim to function democratically, many government unions were certified so long ago that no one currently employed in the bargaining unit has ever had the opportunity to vote about whether to be union represented and, if so, what union to be represented by.

Effectively, unions benefit from what amounts to monopolies on providing workplace representation services.

Government unions should have to stand for regularly scheduled, staterun certification elections every four years.

Allowing public employees to vote at regular intervals on the whole question of union representation would give them greater control over their workplace and allow them to keep their unions accountable.

It could also increase competition in the provision of workplace representation services – which would benefit the taxpayers and union members, but is the last thing the union leadership wants.

• Collective bargaining transparency (Senate Bill 5371) Many decisions about public services, accountability and cost are decided in collective bargaining negotiations.

In Washington, nearly all contract negotiations between government unions and public employers are conducted behind closed doors.

There’s no law that says it has to be that way, but most jurisdictions would simply rather maintain the status quo than risk offending the union representing the workers.

Meanwhile, even though they must fund the negotiated agreements, taxpayers are prevented from observing the negotiations or even allowing the media representative to watch.

Even worse, unions are often negotiating with public officials that they helped elect.

Government collective bargaining should be treated like most other government meetings and conducted with public oversight. Washington residents should have every right to see for themselves whether their elected leaders are representing their interests or the interests of the union that put them in office.

Just as important, union members

should also be able to see if their union is negotiating in their best interests.

• Ending the gifting of public funds to unions Collective bargaining agreements too often require public employers to pay workers to do union business.

Other contracts require public employers to pay for union representatives to attend contract negotiations.

Such payments amount to gifts of tax dollars to private organizations. All of these activities should be paid for through the union’s membership dues, not with taxpayer dollars.

• Giving a fair process to those who have a religious objection to unions (Senate Bill 5339/House Bill 1007) State and federal civil rights laws assure that one may not be required to violate their faith as a condition of employment, and an accommodation must be made for those who object to mandatory union payment.

Most often, the accommodation is to donate money to charity in lieu of paying union dues.

But how much money? And who decides if the objection is legitimate?

Which charity may be selected? How long can the process take?

Unfortunately, the laws in Washington pertaining to public employees give the union the power to answer these questions in its favor.

This legislation will create a streamlined process. It allows the religious objector to pay no more than other nonmembers and to select any charity approved by the state’s Combined Fund Drive without union interference.

• Giving public employees the right to see union financial statements Despite the fact that unions operate as monopoly businesses charging whatever they wish and spending however much its leaders decide to spend, members have no right to know anything about the union expenditures.

Private-sector employees have federal union reporting laws to allow them to know about union financial affairs.

When politicians created the Washington public employee union laws, they did not give an equivalent protection to public employees. This legislation simply requires government unions to report the exact same financial information that private-sector unions already report.

7

8

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

BILL WOULD EXEMPT BAD VETERINARIANS

FROM PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCHES

O

regon Gov. Kate Brown continues to mouth the words about government transparency, but her actions tell a far different story.

A year ago, partly in response to Brown and the Legislature’s outrageous and illegal stonewalling of a legitimate information request submitted by the Freedom Foundation to the Oregon Department of Human Services, the state formed a Public Records Law Reform Task Force whose goal, we were told, was to streamline the system and make Oregon government more open, not less.

The process needn’t have been as complicated as the members of the board – all handpicked by the governor, of course – made it. After all, the state already has a

By ANNE MARIE GURNEY, Oregon Director

perfectly serviceable public records law on its books.

The problem is that it also has more than 550 exemptions to that law, each carved out to protect a different special interest.

Were Brown and her enablers truly serious about open government, they could have made huge strides in that direction simply by pruning that list down by at least half.

Instead, it came to light last week that the governor personally sponsored a bill in

Oregon Update

Highlighting the successes being realized by the Freedom Foundation’s newly opened branch office.

the current legislative session that would create no fewer than 41 new exemptions from records searches for everything from “audits or audit reports required of a telecommunications carrier” to “a medical examiner’s report, autopsy report or laboratory test report ordered by a medical examiner.”

But without question the least defensible but easiest to understand new exemption in HB2326 was the very last on the list: “Records relating to the name of a person required to pay a fine imposed by the Oregon State Veterinary Medical Examining Board.”

In other words, if the bill is approved, you’d no longer have a right to know if your veterinarian has been sanctioned by the state for professional misconduct.

Out of curiosity, what’s the point of licensing – beyond generating revenue – if not to ensure the licensee is at least minimally competent to practice in his or her field?

And what good is that assurance if potential patients and customers have to take a politician’s word for it because they can’t find out for themselves?

So why would the governor make a special – albeit buried deep in the fine print – exception for this particular group?

Maybe it has something to do with the $500 check she pocketed from the Veterinarians Organized to Elect PAC a month before the election and two months prior to the deadline for pre-filing bills for the 2017 session.

Wonder how happy the leaders of animals rights groups – and the animal lovers who donate to them – would be to know the candidate they helped elect was plotting behind their backs to introduce a bill that would hide the records of incompetent veterinarians behind an impenetrable wall of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.

As we know at Freedom Foundation, they should act quickly.

As always, for all her hot air about transparency and open government, “Cash & Carry Kate” isn’t the least bit embarrassed to sell her principles to the highest bidder.

And they come dirt cheap, too.

GOVERNOR SHOULDN’T OVERSEE TRANSPARENCY ADVOCATE

By ANNE MARIE GURNEY

Reprinted from THE OREGONIAN Dec. 28, 2016

T

he spectacle of Oregon’s fight for transparent government has officially veered so far into Orwellian doublespeak that it might be instructive to take a minute and review exactly why we’re going through this exercise in the first place.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum last year announced the formation of the Public Records Law Reform Task Force to address the state’s serial violations of its own disclosure laws.

Perhaps the most notorious of these which prompted a collection of blistering editorials directed at both Rosenblum and Gov. Kate Brown - involved a request by the Freedom Foundation for the names of taxpayer-compensated home healthcare providers.

By all accounts the request was entirely legitimate, since the names were a matter of public record. But when SEIU 503 -- the union representing the workers -complained, the request was stonewalled just long enough for the Legislature to pass a hastily crafted bill that excluded from public records laws precisely the information sought by the Freedom Foundation, for which I am the Oregon director.

Not long after, Rosenblum created a task force to “review and recommend improvements to Oregon’s public records laws.” But it quickly became apparent the panel’s true purpose was simply to provide political cover for Brown and Rosenblum, and to advocate on their behalf for less transparency rather than more.

After all, if the goal was really open and responsive government, why create a task force at all?

There’s no need to change Oregon’s existing public records law. A good start would be to simply start enforcing the one we already have. Or better yet, eliminate most, if not all, of the 550 plus authorized exemptions to it.

Brown not only wants to staff the task force with her cronies, but she expects it to rubber stamp the idea of her picking her own oversight.The cynicism of the task force was never more on display than last week, when its members - representatives from a handpicked collection of leftist organizations, labor unions and Democratic lawmakers - discussed a suggestion from Brown that Oregon create a

Public Records Advocate and Public Records Advisory Council to referee public information request disputes.

Leaving aside the obvious irony of creating more government to enforce a policy meant to ensure less of it, the more glaringly obvious problem with Brown’s scheme is that she wants the would-be advocate housed in the Department of Administrative Services, whose top administrator answers to Brown.

In other words, Brown not only wants to staff the task force with her cronies, but she expects it to rubber stamp the idea of her picking her own oversight.

All in the name of transparency.

The residents of Oregon deserve better. Public records laws exist to make government more accountable, not less.

But when that law makes 550 plus exceptions for special interests near and dear to the governor’s heart, you don’t have anything.

You have even less when the governor and the attorney general game the system to make it look like there is oversight when there actually isn’t.

Kate Brown and Ellen Rosenblum can hardly be trusted to fix the problem because they are the problem.

Anne Marie Gurney is Oregon director of the Freedom Foundation.

LIVING LIBERTY

BEST OF THE BLOG

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

[JANUARY]

IF SEATTLE’S SCHOOLS ARE IN A CRISIS,

THE TEACHERS’ UNION CAUSED IT

S

eattle School Superintendent Larry Nyland’s Dec. 27 Seattle Times guest opinion (“State caused Seattle Schools Crisis”) suggests Washington’s Legislature is responsible for his district having obligations that outstrip its budget by $74 million.

Where do these obligations come from? The Seattle teachers union organized a strike in 2015, and the price tag of the concessions it grabbed is due next year.

According to Dan Troccoli, an official of the SEA and part of the strike effort, “Overall, the contract was a massive win. Oh my God. It was just like, we spanked them. We spanked the hell out of the district.”

The union’s efforts did not result in the 21 percent raise its leaders originally sought, but as Mr. Troccoli points out about the 2016 to 2018 increases, “We got 2 percent, 3 percent and 4.5 percent . . . that’s pretty frickin’ good.”

How much does it cost to give 3,000 teachers a 9.5 percent raise?

A thumbnail estimate puts the price tag at something like $20 million, and the Times reported the district expects payroll costs to increase by $25 million.

Nyland concedes as much when he says, “Seattle Public Schools chose to increase educator compensation based on the promise of full funding from the state.”

However, this claim is deceptive, since the contract he signed clearly says, “Salary Schedule will be in-

By JAMI LUND, Senior Policy Analyst

creased by the percentage, if any, the Legislature provides for increases through the annual State Allocation Model.”

This means that even if the Legislature doubled the salary of all teachers, the budget hole SPS has incurred would actually get worse since the union-demanded raises are not supplanted but enhanced by more state funding.

Seattle Public Schools has finite sources of funds—the specific amount it receives from voter-approved levies and the amount received from state and federal funds for specific purposes.

State funds have increased by 36 percent and included a 4.8 percent employee raise. But agreeing to the 9.5 percent additional teacher raise has a price tag which has to come from somewhere.

The need to cut local services to pay for union contracts is how districts can result in greater scarcity even though the state increased funding by 36 percent.

To be fair to the district, the illegal teacher strike did destroy thoughtful budgeting by the leadership team. Unfortunately, the law does not seriously penalize the organization that holds the paramount duty of the state hostage for personal gain.

However, the union notes that the

school board was more than willing to overlook thoughtful budgeting because it was beholden to the union in the last election.

Tricollo explains that SEA’s success at getting the district to overcommit funds was part of a larger union movement including the “total overturning of our school board. We kicked all the bums out recently.”

This led the state’s Basic Education Finance Task Force to recommend an end to the law allowing levy-funded wage enhancements in union contracts, but the Legislature has not yet implemented this solution.

As lawmakers finish the bulk of the education funding task, they must not ignore the need to end union contracts’ ability to saddle districts with escalating payroll costs for which families receive no new services.

Local schools could afford a range of new or formerly-provided services if union officials’ grip on school spending priorities was loosened.

Superintendent Nyland and I both agree the Legislature needs to address this issue.

So if you are inclined to help, contact the Legislature at (800) 562-6000 and ask for two things that would let local officials keep their budgets solvent in while still allowing employee participation in decisions.

First, ask lawmakers to end negotiations on local pay raises, and second, ask them to penalize unions that disrupt the state’s paramount duty.

FF COMPLAINT LEADS TO ANOTHER AG LAWSUIT

I

n response to a formal Freedom Foundation complaint, the Washington State Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit in late December against the Washington State Budget and Policy Center (WSBPC) for breaking state campaign finance laws by failing to report activity and expenditures in opposition to Initiative 1366 in 2015.

WSBPC is a left-of-center 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that works to “support the essential role of government in promoting a just and prosperous society.” I-1366 was a ballot measure brought by Tim Eyman that would have lowered the sales tax rate unless the legislature referred a state constitutional amendment to the voters requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to adopt any tax increases.

Despite heavy opposition from government unions and other progressive groups, voters passed I-1366 with 52 percent support. In May 2016, however, the Washington State Supreme Court struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

During the election, the WSBPC formally opposed the initiative and its staff regularly encouraged voters to reject it. While federal tax law permits

By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director

nonprofit organizations to engage in limited political activity on ballot measures, state campaign finance law requires nonprofits to report to the Public Disclosure Commission any expenditures made in support of or opposition to ballot measures. In this case, the WSBPC failed to report the value of its staff time spent opposing I-1366.

The WSBPC made its opposition to I-1366 known in no uncertain terms. In an article posted on its website on Sept. 4, 2016, for example, Andy Nicholas, the Center’s associate director of fiscal policy, described I-1366 as “a dangerous proposal” that would “undercut democracy in our state” and called on voters to “reject I-1366 at the November ballot.”

Additionally, as the Freedom Foundation documented and the AG lawsuit recognized, WSBPC “used its funds and staff time to support pre-election litigation to invalidate I-1366 and prevent a public vote.”

WSBPC receives substantial

support from government unions in Washington. According to the Freedom Foundation’s analysis of LM-2 financial reports some unions must file with the U.S. Department of Labor, WSBPC received at least $207,639 from government unions like the SEIU and the Washington Federation of State Employees from 2013-2015.

As the state’s most powerful and consistent advocates for higher taxes, these government unions led the opposition to I-1366.

If the Attorney General takes no enforcement action within 45 days of the notice and proper procedures are followed, the citizen may file suit to enforce the Act in court on behalf of the state.

After documenting the allegations against the WSBPC, the Freedom Foundation submitted the “45-day letter” to the Attorney General’s office on Oct. 18. The Attorney General’s lawsuit against the WSBPC was filed on Dec. 19.

The Attorney General’s lawsuit against the WSBPC marks the sixth time in the past year that the state has initiated legal action against government unions or their allies for violating election laws on the basis of Freedom Foundation complaints.

9

What They

&

What They She said: “As a union member, I would like to say that none of my union dues can go to political concerns. I give an extra amount to WEA-PAC, which is the WEA political action committee.”

She meant: “Which means the union is screwing ANNETTE MILES me twice. By defin- HOCKMAN Tacoma, Wash., ition, collective bargaining between Nov. 17, 2016 the state and a government employee union involves decisions about how tax money is spent. This makes everything a union does a ‘political’ concern. Therefore, by law I should be able to opt out of all of it.” n n n

She said: “The ‘right to work’ is more like the right for the billionaires to take advantage of their employees, not offer a retirement, healthcare, living wage or overtime.”

DANA UFKES Seattle, Wash.

Feb. 26, 2016

She meant: “I vastly prefer being exploited by my union, which takes my money, spends it on candidates and causes I may not support witihout my permission, then squanders millions of dollars on lawsuits to make sure I never know my rights.

That’s the kind of freedom I believe in." n n n

He said: “Be wary of any group title that includes the words freedom, liberty, patriot, heritage or truth.”

He meant: “Because those concepts are anethema to unions. We know we can’t give our members the freedom or liberty KEN CHRISTY Seattle, Wash. to make March 11, 2016 up their own minds about unions because if we did, they’d opt out so fast it’d make your head spin. We also scoff at the notion of patriotism and heritage because our allegiance is to the union, not to the principles that made this country great. That’s also why we demonize organizations that espouse the truth. When your whole world view is built on a tissue of lies, you can’t take chances.

10

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

FACES OF FREEDOM WHY SHOULD YOU ATTEND A ‘PLANNING FOR LIFE’ EVENT?

T

HAN TAPPED TO DIRECT CALIFORNIA OPERATION

T

he Freedom Foundation announced today that Sam Han has joined its leadership team to guide the organization’s latest expansion into California.

Han joins the Freedom Foundation as the California director to hold local and state governments accountable to citizens and not be beholden to public-sector union influence.

As the director of California operations, Han is tasked with

coordinating directed attacks towards public-sector unions and providing guidance to legislators and citizens on ways to combat union influence.

As a California native, Han has been involved in local, state and federal campaigns and previously worked for the California State Legislature as a district director.

He is a graduate of University of California San Diego and holds a business certificate from the Harvard Business School.

hree reasons: 1. It’s not about death and dying. It’s about protecting your assets and the future of your loved ones. That’s why we call it Planning for Life.

2. You will leave this workshop with all the right questions to ask your own personal advisor and complete a valid will or estate plan.

3. Attendees tell us this is the most valuable workshop they’ve ever attended. And it’s free.

If you have no will, the government has one for you. It’s a plan by default, and heirs can be left with little or nothing.

Government has no knowledge of your achievements, faith, principles, ethics or love of liberty and devotion to family.

I encourage you to learn how to create a plan by design.

The only way to ensure your will or trust reflects your wishes is to design it yourself with competent counsel.

Whether your current documents need updating or you need information from a trusted professional to begin the process, please plan to attend a Planning for Life workshop this year and join the many who have gained that peace

By IRENE ENDICOTT, Legacy Society Director

of mind that comes from knowing this important life task has been accomplished.

This is the 14th year the Freedom Foundation has presented this complimentary workshop around the state.

It’s our gift to our members for supporting our work. Nothing is sold at the workshops.

And you’ll have a good time and enjoy a beautiful, hot buffet.

I encourage you to choose a workshop nearest your home. If you have to drive a bit, it will be worth it.

Do it for your family. I promise, you’ll be glad you came.

Call (800) 769-6617 if you have questions or to reserve your spot.

Bring a family member, a friend, neighbor or your personal advisor with you.

Invitations will be mailed a month before each event, but here’s a tentative schedule for the coming year: May 4 Bellevue/Eastside June 22 Portland, Ore. Sept. 21 Spokane

LINCOLN COUNTY: A GIANT STEP TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 campaign contributions from the very unions with whom they’re asked to negotiate.

One need look no further than Washington state government to see this conflict of interest writ large.

A compelling case can be made that Jay Inslee would never have become Washington’s governor in the first place without the $6 million in campaign donations he accepted in 2012 from organized labor – including $3 million from unions with whom he and his surrogates would be writing a new contract just a few months later.

Under the circumstances, can anyone seriously argue it’s not in the public interest to let taxpayers see just whose side the governor is on?

At least two other Washington counties were watching closely this month as Lincoln County stood up to the union bullies and beat back the Teamsters’ complaint. And with PERC’s assurance that open government is still legal in Washington, there’s nothing stopping others from following Lincoln County’s courageous lead.

The frustrating thing is that we have to debate the issue at all. ““Government transparency should be the rule, not the exception,” Dewhirst said. “When it comes to public employee contract bargaining, it’s not complicated. Because local governments designate the highest percentage of taxpayer dollars to pay employees, taxpayers shouldn’t be boxed out of the bargaining process. Whenever anyone tries to argue that government operates better with more

Freedom Foundation Litigation Counsel David Dewirst, who serves on the board of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, presents Lincoln County’s commissioners with that organization’s Key Award during their Jan. 17 open collective bargaining session.

Freedom Foundation photo

secrecy—citizens should push back.”

Rather than having to go to court to explain why letting the taxpayers see how their dollars are spent is a bad idea, the burden of proof should be on the unions and the politicians they control to explain how secrecy and back-room deals could

possibly be a good thing.

Short answer: It isn’t, and the Lincoln County commissioners deserve a standing ovation for being the ones to set Washington back on the path toward open, responsible, accountable government.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

11

FREEDOM IN THE NEWS IN PRINT

Dec. 30, 2016

ONLINE

Dec. 31, 2016

2016: WHAT A YEAR! OREGON’S MIXED PROGRESS ON BIPARTISANSHIP, PERSONAL FREEDOM: EDITORIAL AGENDA 2016 “The Oregon Department of Human Services dragged its heels on a public records request by the Freedom Foundation. The organization had requested names and addresses for home health care workers to alert them of their right to not pay fees to a union if they didn’t want to join. But as the state delayed for months on fulfilling the legitimate request, legislators passed a law signed by Gov. Kate Brown to specifically exempt the information that the Freedom Foundation sought. So much for letting people learn about their rights.”

ONLINE

December 30, 2016

IS THE DEMS’ BIGGEST DONOR BREAKING THE LAW?

“The Freedom Foundation announced today a “complaint filed with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office that has the potential to cost the union millions and alter the way it conducts its political affairs.” The filing with the AG’s offices claims that “wrongdoing going back as much as five years, (and) 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.”

“An anti-home care organization known as the Freedom Foundation has begun targeting UDW caregivers – making themselves a major threat in 2017. The Freedom Foundation tells IHSS providers to quit their union in order to save money.

Unfortunately, they don’t tell the full story. As a union, we’ve fought and won big victories, not only this year (see a list of our many victories together here). No one provider could do alone what we do together. The Freedom Foundation wants to weaken strong unions like ours, in order to further their corporate billionaire-backed agenda.”

RADIO

January 20, 2017

GREEN GROUPS SEE SILVER LINING TO TRUMP WIN: MONEY AND MEMBERS “Conservative nonprofits the Freedom Foundation, the Washington Policy Center and the Family Policy Institute of Washington all report they’re doing fine financially, though they haven’t seen a big spike in support after the election. ‘It was right where we projected it to be at the beginning of the year,” Jeff Rhodes with the Freedom Foundation said.’ ”

2017 SCHEDULE May 4 - Bellevue/Eastside June 22 - Portland, Oregon Sept. 21 - Spokane, Washington This is the 14th year Freedom Foundation has presented this complimentary workshop around the state. It is our gift to our members for supporting our work. Nothing is sold at the workshops. And you’ll have a good time and enjoy a beautiful, hot buffet!

We encourage you to choose a workshop nearest your home. If you have to drive a bit, it will be worth it. Do it for your family—you will be glad you came.

Give us a call if you have questions or to reserve your spot

360-956-3482

12

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

ACTION TIMELINE SPOTLIGHTING SOME OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION’S NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PAST MONTH January 4 The Freedom Foundation had 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.

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.

January 16 On Jan. 16, the Freedom Foundation filed 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. It’s the 10th such complaint filed by the Freedom Foundation in the past year, and all have been successful.

January 17 January 12

January 9 The Washington State Legislature’s 2017 session gets under way. Freedom Foundation policy analysts Max Nelsen and Jami

Union Reform Project:

LEGISLATE LITIGATE EDUCATE ACTIVATE We’ve built a site dedicated to educating and informing union members of their constitutional right to opt out of their union.

OptOutToday.com

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

Freedom Foundation staff members attended 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. When the Teamsters protested to the Public Employee Review Committee, Freedom Foundation attorneys represented the county pro bono and the complaint was subsequently dismissed.