April 2020 Living Liberty

Dept. of Labor adopts transparency standards .......

4

Forgeries illustrate the need for secret ballots ........

5

Oregon GOP lawmakers use unions’ own tactics ......

8

APRIL 2020

LIVING LIBERTY A Publication of the Freedom Foundation

A new billboard at the corner of Legion Way and Adams Street in downtown Olympia will feature the face of recently retired WFSE chief Greg Devereux.

The Freedom Foundation constructs a monument to Devereux’s hypocrisy

Electronic Service Requested

Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507

T

he irony — make that hypocrisy — of WFSE Executive Director Greg Devereux availing himself of an option his union has stubbornly denied many of its members was too rich to keep to ourselves.

So the Freedom Foundation purchased a billboard to share it with the world.

Devereux ended his reign of terror as head of the Washington Federation of State Employees, Council 28, in late February. According to a press release posted to the organization’s website, he stepped down in January after nearly 40 years in the labor movement.

What makes the news paradoxical is that, under Devereux, WFSE was among the nation’s most unapologetic opponents of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME that affirmed the rights of public employees at all levels of government to decline to finance their union’s activities.

Labor activists will insist Devereux’s decision to retire is nothing like a worker opting out of union membership and dues.

After 40 years of loyal service, they would argue, he’s earned the right to reap his just rewards and depart on his own terms.

By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor

But that reasoning just illustrates their willful ignorance about what’s at stake from the very beginning.

Rights aren’t earned, nor are they conferred by unions or even the Supreme Court. As the U.S. Constitution makes clear, our rights come from our Creator, and not even a majority of the voters can suppress them.

As such, every government employee has just as much right as Greg Devereux to wake up one morning and decide it makes sense to be a free agent.

But when they do, the union will almost certainly spend his or her own dues money to thwart their will.

Greg Devereux is a 5-star phony who believes the rules only apply to the little people who’ve been paying his bloated salary for all these years.

And now this fraud is being exposed as thousands of commuters have the opportunity to contemplate the union double standard every day.

The first Devereux ad went up this month along Legion Way and Adams Street in downtown Olympia — as close as possible to the WFSE offices, not coincidentally.

“In one respect, we’re having a little fun at their expense,” said Freedom Foundation Executive Vice President Brian Minnich. “After all, the billboard doesn’t even identify Devereux, so it’s sort of an inside joke.

“At the same time,” he said, “it highlights the fundamental point we try to hammer home every day: Greg Devereux doesn’t care about you. He only cares about your paychecks because that’s what he intends to ride off into the sunset with while you’re denied the same right to exercise your free will that he reserves to himself.”

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 4

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

Publisher: Tom McCabe Editor: Jeff Rhodes

CONTACT Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507

(360) 956-3482 FreedomFoundation.com

“Quote” ~ of the month ~

[2 ]

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION O F THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

CONTENTS PAGE 3

PAGE 4

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

LEADERSHIP MEMO

By MAXFORD NELSEN U.S. Department of Labor adopts transparency standards for union trusts.

By TOM McCABE Our donors, board members stand strong in the face of despicable attacks from unions.

PAGE 5

LITIGATING FREEDOM

By SHEILA SADOVNIK California community college workers file suit to win freedom from union oppression.

PAGES 6 & 7

Reprinted from the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL Forgeries show the need for secret ballots.

By JEFF RHODES Would letting public employees bargain collectively really be in the state of Virginia’s best interests?

What They Said & What They Meant

Taking a

slice

Out of the Law

Union-backed measure passed by Washington Legislature exempts the Freedom Foundation from state’s public records requirements.

PAGE 8 OREGON UPDATE “If Americans want to join organizations that undercut initiative and achievement to slide employees into safe, pre-determined slots regardless of ability or work ethic, that’s their business. If they want to break the law and blackmail entire communities that have no choice but to walk away, they should be fired. If they want to force co-workers to pay for their political activities, they should be stopped. And if they claim that most teachers want to willingly participate in union efforts, the only way to find out is by giving those public employees a choice.”

DAVID HARSANYI , Conservative columnist,

Op-ed, RealClear Politics May 2, 2018

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

By JASON DUDASH GOP lawmakers draw fire for using unions’ own tactics.

By JASON DUDASH Union’s political wheeling and dealing under scrutiny.

PAGE 9

SPOTLIGHT ON CALIFORNIA

By SAM COLEMAN Public pensions close to bankrupting state.

By SAM COLEMAN UAW probe widens as UC Santa Barbara paid student instructors strike.

PAGE 10

FREEDOM IN ACTION

By REBECCA WHITE Reprinted from SPOKESMAN REVIEW Spokane County backs legal efforts to compel government employee unions to bargain in public eye.

PAGE 11

FREEDOM IN THE NEWS

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

PAGE 12

ACTION TIMELINE

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

T

“McCabe and the Freedom Foundation have long pushed a far-right agenda that’s out of step with most Olympia-area citizens. The Freedom Foundation is funded by out-of-state billionaires who want to keep wages low, eliminate sick leave and slash crucial funding for quality education. The Freedom Foundation also shares financial ties with extremist groups who target environmentalists, LGBT groups and women’s health.”

And just to make sure those who rightly concluded the piece was junk mail and threw it in the trash without reading it got the message, too, the same bottom-dwelling cowards committed their lies to audiotape, which they used to create a robocall targeting an even wider audience.

I’m quite certain even fewer people listened to the phone call than read the mailer, but of those who did, the overwhelming majority were angry, appalled or both.

My wife and I subsequently spoke with many of our neighbors, and even those whose political views differ from mine — which means just about everyone in that part of Olympia — were offended by the group’s tactics because they were clearly intended to provoke an act of violence against me or a member of my family.

When none was forthcoming, NWAP vented its wrath on my staff, sending similar messages to the neighbors of several of our most visible freedom fighters. Again, to no avail because the people who work here know what to expect when they’re hired, and they take it as a compliment when our opponents are forced to respond with dirty tricks.

At that point, NWAP began targeting our donors and board members.

Then-President Steve Neighbors was the first to feel the heat. As chairman of Terra Staffing Group, he had helped build the company into one of the largest independently owned employment agencies in the nation.

In April 2016, however, NWAP launched its terror campaign by mailing to his clients a hit piece similar to the one received by my neighbors. The text asked readers, “Are the connections between Terra Staffing and the increasingly controversial and divisive Freedom Foundation creating additional, unnecessary risks for clients?”

First of all, in this context, the word “controversial” is simply a synonym for “successful,” while “divisive” means “someone I disagree with.”

NWAP was actually conceding it wanted the Freedom

LEADERSHIP

Our donors, board members withstand despicable attacks hey started off attacking us personally.

Within months of its formation in 2015, the Northwest Accountability Project (NWAP) — a shadowy, union-financed front group whose only mission appears to be wasting money on a series of amateurish attacks directed toward the Freedom Foundation — mailed a glossy, four-page flyer to all of my Olympia neighbors, and members of my church, accusing me and the organization of … pretty much everything they could think of:

3

MEMO

LIVING LIBERTY

Foundation eliminated because we were taking on the unions and winning.

By TOM McCABE, CEO And what “additional, unnecessary risks for clients” would Neighbors’ association with the Freedom Foundation pose? In fact, this was a veiled threat on which NWAP subsequently acted when it sent its own paid crews to picket Terra Staffing offices and then posted a video of the activity on Facebook.

As had been the case with me, the Neighbors mailer made no direct charges. It simply implied he was too broad-minded on the subject of the environment and had been known to make disparaging remarks about Planned Parenthood.

If they’d bothered to ask, I could have told them it wouldn’t work. If anything, NWAP’s vicious attacks on someone whose only crime was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech — and then putting his money where his mouth is — only validated Steve’s confidence in the Freedom Foundation by illustrating just how afraid of us the unions actually are.

But instead of learning that lesson, NWAP doubled down on Charlie Connor Neighbors’ successor, Charlie Conand Steve Neighbors nor.

The president of Connor Homes didn’t become the was already in the organization’s men they did by sights when he succeeded the retiring a Steve Neighbors as head of the Freedom Foundation’s board of backing down from directors. He had been the subject bullies. Like the of his own flier with the familiar organiztion they vague accusasions of racism, homophobia, etc., based on his assostill support without ciation with this organization.

But NWAP followed this by hesitation, both contacting his customers — and understand that prospective customers — spreading fanciful stories about defective you don’t draw flak construction work, mildew complaints, flooding and the like. unless you’re on the In March, Connor’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to NWAP, target. Bombs away, which responded with a non-apolo- NWAP. gy from its own legal team.

I have no idea how this will shake out, but I, for one, say it’s high time the Northwest Accountability Project was finally held accountable for its long history of lies.

Charlie Connor and Steve Neighbors didn’t become the men they did by backing down from bullies. Like the organization they still support without hesitation, both understands that you don’t draw flak unless you’re on the target.

Bombs away, NWAP.

“

”

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

SUPPORT THE FIGHT!

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

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

CALL (360) 956-3482, OR VISIT WWW.FREEDOMFOUNDATION.COM

4

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

US Dept. of Labor adopts transparency standards

O

n March 6, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a final regulation extending financial transparency requirements to certain trusts operated by labor unions.

The new rule implements a Freedom Foundation recommendation to make unions and their affiliates more accountable for their use of funds provided by employers and intended to be used for employees’ benefit.

Since 1959, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) has required unions representing any private-sector employees to file annual financial reports with the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) within DOL. The LMRDA specifically defines “trusts in which a labor organization is interested” and authorizes DOL to adopt regulations “to prevent the circumvention or evasion of [the LMRDA’s] reporting requirements.”

Accordingly, during the George W. Bush administration, DOL implemented a regulation requiring trusts operated by unions subject to the LMRDA to file annual financial reports.

DOL successfully defended the rule against unions’ legal challenges, but the regulation was rescinded during the Barack Obama administration before any reports were filed.

The final regulation announced Friday by DOL largely mirrors the previous version adopted during the Bush years and will require trusts with annual receipts exceeding $250,000 over which unions exert majority control of funds and/or board leadership to file annual T-1 reports with OLMS disclosing certain financial information, such as staff and officer compensation and all receipts

By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director

and disbursements over $10,000.

These reports will be publicly available, allowing union members and watchdog organizations to monitor trust activity for any misconduct and, hopefully, discouraging any malfeasance from occurring in the first place.

The Freedom Foundation pointed out last year that, in the absence of such transparency requirements, two recent, high profile criminal investigations and prosecutions of union officials in the United Auto Workers and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers involved embezzlement and misuse of union operated trust funds meant to provide training and apprenticeship opportunities.

While most trusts covered by the new rule are managed by unions representing primarily private-sector employees, some affected trusts operate for the benefit of “partial-public employees” and are taxpayer funded.

As the Freedom Foundation explained in its July 2019 comment to DOL formally supporting the proposed rule, “Increasingly, unions representing homecare aides serving Medicaid-eligible clients with disabilities are forming trusts to administer various employee benefits provided with Medicaid dollars…

Similar unions representing groups of employees like home caregivers, childcare providers and other ‘partial-public employees’ compensated with public funds are increasingly seeking to establish similar employment benefits trusts funded with tax dollars.

Would letting public employees bargain collectively be in Virginia’s best interests?

P

aul Wellstone, the late, uber-liberal Minnesota senator, has often been quoted as saying, “The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power.”

If so, he’d be horrified to discover what the party he once belonged to is attempting to do in the state where he graduated from Yorktown High School.

At last glance, House Bill 582 was on its last reading in the Virginia General Assembly, while a similar measure, Senate Bill 939, was working its way through committee.

Both bills, supported almost exclusively by the Democratic majority, would permit public employees at the city, county and state level to bargain collectively. And passage of either one or both would have the effect of replacing the myriad independent agencies and causes lobbying lawmakers in Richmond with one huge, super-special-interest whose wishes would carry more weight than those of any other bloc — including voters.

Government employee unions.

With a single stroke of the governor’s pen, only one voice would matter in Virginia government, and it would be the one greasing the palms of the state’s legislators. If the experience of other states is any example, public-sector unions in very short order would amass more cash and clout than any other special interest in the state.

There are two reasons why this is true.

First, like unions in the private sector, gov-

ernment employee unions have the luxury of spending someone else’s money rather than funding their political activities the way other special interests do — through donations from like-minded activists.

And secondly, there are a lot of pockets to pick. While membership in private-sector unions has hit all-time lows, unions representing government workers continue to thrive for the simple reason that government at every level continues to grow unchecked under Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Bigger government, logically enough, means more public employees — which means more union members and more dues money to hand out to lawmakers willing and able to keep the endless Conga line moving.

Even in the face of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling nearly two years ago that did away with mandatory membership and dues in the government workplace, unions in states that permit collective bargaining for public employees have brazenly resisted compliance by a variety of means.

Here in Washington state, for example, government workers who’ve attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to leave their union have been bullied and intimidated by their coworkers. Meanwhile, the unions have outright ignored legitimate opt-out requests, forcing workers to file suit against the union — whose attorneys were paid with the employee’s own dues money.

Unions here have modified their own

While some may fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and file Forms 5500, others do not, leaving a significant transparency gap and creating an environment in which misconduct by those labor officials charged with administering the funds is harder to detect.

Adopting the proposed rule would help close this loophole to the benefit of both the employees in whose name the trust funds are managed and the taxpayers financing the benefits.”

In Washington state, for instance, SEIU Local 775 operates at least four trusts that are funded almost exclusively by taxpayers, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually, to provide various benefits to home caregivers serving Medicaid beneficiaries.

Two of these trusts are not currently subject to any meaningful state or federal financial transparency requirements but will presumably be covered by the new regulation.

In its comments on the proposed rule, the Freedom Foundation provided several suggestions to help strengthen the regulation and contended DOL should try to “(maximize the application)of the regulation within legal limits.”

While the final rule did not go as far as it could have, its restraint and concessions to various union concerns appear designed to help it withstand legal challenge.

Indeed, unions will presumably redeploy the same delay-through-litigation strategy that allowed a union-friendly administration to pull the plug on the previous rule in 2009.

The final rule did, however, incorporate six technical corrections and minor errors spotted by the Freedom Foundation and highlighted in its comments to DOL. Although DOL has recently done good work in streamlining and repealing regulations that hinder jobs and enterprise, the importance of new regulations like the final T-1 rule and a similar proposed rule to extend financial transparency requirements to certain unions should not be overlooked.

By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor

rules to permit opt-outs only during an arbitrary two-week annual window and passed state laws to prevent third parties from contacting state workers and informing them of their rights.

When all else fails, there are even dozens of cases on file of workers whose signatures were forged on membership cards authorizing dues deductions.

Thus far, prosecutors have shown little interest in filing criminal charges in such cases, and judges — many of whom are beholden themselves to public-sector unions — continue to issue rulings that beggar belief.

Slowly but surely this is all changing as more and more bad court rulings are overturned on appeal, but the process takes time.

Meanwhile, the state remains in the grip of unions that can simply spend a little more of someone else’s money to rewrite even the laws they’ve clearly broken.

Is this what Virginia wants? To endow one special interest with the power to push all the others from the trough while it gorges itself?

One last word to lawmakers thinking of supporting — or being paid to support — HB 582 or SB 939: Be careful what you wish for.

It’s likely Richmond will be awash in union money if either bill or both is passed into law, and much of it may find its way into your pocket.

But if all it buys you is the right to do someone else’s bidding, is it worth it?

A well-compensated errand boy is still an errand boy.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

LITIGATING FREEDOM

5

What They

&

What They

Forgeries illustrate once again why union elections need secret ballots EDITORIAL BOARD Reprinted from the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL Feb. 9, 2020

S

igifredo Araujo says he never signed a union card, but that didn’t stop SEIU 775 from taking dues out of his paycheck.

Mr. Araujo lives in Washington state and has provided in-home health care to his disabled mother for seven years. Medicaid pays for the care, but the SEIU wanted a cut. In 2018, he noticed that the union was withdrawing dues from his paycheck.

When he inquired about this, union officials told him that he had signed a membership card.

He asked for a copy but never received it. The next year, he asked again. This time the union sent the card, but there was a problem. His signature wasn’t his. Someone had forged it.

Something similar happened to Sharrie Yates.

She works for Washington state’s Healthcare Authority as a medical assistant. Washington isn’t a right-to-work state. Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus ruling, Yates had to pay dues to the Washington Federation of State Employees. That ruling gave government employees the First Amendment right not to pay union dues.

But when she asked to leave the union, it refused.

Union officials claimed she had electronically signed a renewal form just a few days before the Janus ruling.

It’s easy for a situation like this to end in a

stalemate. Unions have a financial incentive not to investigate apparent fraud or to allow those victimized to opt out.

Workers are usually stuck waiting for the next opt-out period. If they miss their window, which may only be a couple of weeks long, they have to wait another year.

Fortunately, these workers found the Freedom Foundation, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to worker freedom and opposing coerced unionism. It has sued on their behalf. The Freedom Foundation has filed similar lawsuits in Oregon and California, too. Last year, it settled another forgery case, this one in Washington state, for $28,000.

The authorities should investigate these unions to find out how widespread these incidents are.

Those responsible for forgeries should face criminal charges. That’s what would happen if a bank or other private business tried a scam like this.

But because unions and Democratic politicians are political allies, don’t expect that to happen.

There’s an important lesson to learn here. For years, unions have wanted Congress to allow them to unionize a workplace using card check instead of secret ballots. With card check, a union can claim to represent workers by producing cards “signed” by a majority of employees.

These cases are a reminder of what some unions will do to gain or retain power. It’s why workers must be able to express their true feelings about workplace representation using a secret ballot.

California Community College Employees File Lawuit to Win Freedom from Unions

I

magine being trapped in an organization you didn’t support, subsidizing beliefs you don’t hold and paying dues every month for the privilege? Then imagine being told this situation would persist for at least another two years in direct violation of your constitutional rights.

That’s exactly the position Kristine Kurk and Dawn Woltkamp find themselves in — to hear their designated labor union tell it, that is.

Both women are community college employees in central California, and both bravely provided notice to their union, the Los Rios Classified Employee Association (LRCEA) of their intent to decline membership and dues payments. Their constitutional right to do just that — with no penalty — was affirmed in June of 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME. Nonetheless, the union and their employers insist state law requires them to remain union members against their will.

You read that right. The state of California is forcing both women to remain in an organization whose values they do not share and pay dues to support activities that conflict with their values.

Fortunately, the Freedom Foundation understands what frequently gets overlooked in California — state laws do not trump the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

By SHEILA SADOVNIK, Litigation Counsel

Accordingly, on March 28, 2019, and Feb. 28, 2020, the Freedom Foundation filed lawsuits on behalf of Kurk and Woltkamp, respectively, arguing that LRCEA and the College District violated the First Amendment Rights of both women by requiring them to associate with an organization they did not support and pay dues to fund political speech with which they disagree.

This is just one of the ways that the Freedom Foundation fights on behalf of public employees nationwide. With the help of the Freedom Foundation, public employees have come out against the draconian rules of their unions, which try to trap employees in dues payment schemes that can last years.

They then use those dues to pay for causes that many public employees don’t support.

If Kurk and Woltkamp prevail in their cases, it will send a strong message to the unions and empower millions of public employees nationwide to just say no to union bullying. And with the Freedom Foundation at their side, Kurk and Woltkamp know they’re in good hands.

What he said: “You already have the right to keep your union and not pay for its lobbying. But if you’re helped by a union, why would you want to decrease its influence?”

What he meant: BERGER “First, the union JOHN Seattle, Wash. doesn’t recogFacebook post, nize that right — Feb. 6, 2020 and it does everything in its power to avoid having to comply with it. And second, it isn’t up to the union or anyone else but the individual worker to determine whether he or she is ‘helped’ by union membership. And if their subsequently leaving the union decreases its influence, that’s the union’s problem, not the worker’s. n n n

He said: “The Freedom Foundation is an anti-union front for the GOP. They promote slavery for us all.”

He meant: “By definition, slavery refers to profiting CHUCK BOWERS from the Olympia labor of Facebook post, someone Feb. 15, 2020 who has no choice but to provide it.

That’s actually a much better description of unions than the Freedom Foundation, whose only interest is in allowing workers to decide for themselves whether a union makes sense for their situation.” n n n

He said: “I left a state where the unions had been broken. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.”

He meant: “But I’d wish the alternative on everyJOHN BRATT Auburn, Wash. one else.

I couldn’t force WEA member post everyone to do Facebook Feb. 6, 2020 things my way in my former state, so I came to a state where the law does it for me. My concept of freedom is being able to do whatever I want and force you to do it, too.

6

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION

Taking a

slice

Are you at risk when your date of birth is a matter of public record?

Out of the Law

Union-backed measure passed by Washington Legislature exempts the Freedom Foundation from state’s public records requirements.

By DANIEL WALTERS Reprinted from THE INLANDER FEB. 21, 2020

W

ith the notable exception of your 21st, birthdays are generally not considered particularly dangerous.

But yet at the same time, the Washington State Legislature is prepared to pass legislation to redact the dates of birth from Washington state employees from public records requests, arguing that allowing the public to obtain the dates of birth of state employees represented a risk to their privacy and safety.

In particular, employee unions have raised concerns about identity theft.

The measure comes after a Washington state Supreme Court case last year, where the Freedom Foundation, an anti-union organization, successfully argued that employee birthdates were public.

The Freedom Foundation had been requesting employee information as part of their efforts to persuade state employees to stop paying their union dues.

But a majority of judges on the state court concluded that state employee birthdays are very much a part of the public record.

“No Washington case has ever held that employee birthdates associated with names are private,” they ruled last year. “While preventing identity theft and the misuse of personal information is an important policy objective, we must recognize that the [Public Records Act] embodies a critical public policy in its own right.”

Washington state’s #MeToo-driven legislation has made it harder for journalists to investigate harassment But as a result, the Washington State Legislature is looking likely to pass House Bill 1888, which would officially prevent state employee birthdays from being released to most citizens.

So is it actually risky for people to know your birthday?

It’s not clear whether public records request in Washington state have ever been used to aid in identify theft: After all, use a public records request to try to steal someone’s specific identity, you yourself would create a record of that request — and possibly trigger a third-party notification to the intended victim.

The worries from public employees, however, go beyond pure identity theft. Lucinda Young, lobbyist for the Washington Educa tion Association, argued in a committee hearing that protecting birthdates was also about protecting employees from stalking, harassment and domestic violence.

“When you have a date of birth, you can

find where an individual lives,” Young says.

“There is a direct link.”

Union representatives shared stories about death threats made against psychiatric employees and about a bus driver who’d survived domestic violence.

“The stories that I heard were compelling,” says Washington state Rep. Marcus Riccelli, noting the “... ease that somebody could go to get that information targeting a specific entity and their place of employment.”

But that’s where another issue comes in: If you vote in Washington state, your birth date — and a lot more — is almost certainly already publicly accessible “I carry around the birthdates of 3.7 million Washingtonians in my phone,” says Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government. “Anybody can download the voter registration database from the Secretary of State.”

The voter database is one reason why some transparency advocates, like the Seattle Times editorial board, have suggested the efforts of House Bill 1888 are more about protecting union dues than, say, identity theft.

“Whenever they’re talking to the public it’s a bill about safety,” says Rowland Thompson, lobbyist with Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington. “But when they’re talking to me, it’s all about how they want to make sure the Freedom Foundation can’t get access to their birthdates.”

After all, the voter database alone isn’t all that helpful for the Freedom Foundation — they’re looking to identify lists of state employees to contact, and the voter registration file doesn’t include information about a person’s occupation.

But the voter database is useful for politicians. Many of the same state representatives who voted to protect the birth dates of public employees from public record requests, use the voter database every two years to know which doors to knock on and who to send mailers to.

Fortunately for those who’ve been targets in the past, there’s an alternative: The state allows victims of stalking and domestic violence — and criminal justice employees who’ve been harassed — to register with the Address Confidentiality Program. Around 4,500 Washingtonians are members of the program. On public records, their address simply shows up as a P.O. box in Olympia.

But even for employees who aren’t in danger, there’s the feeling of an invasion of privacy. Imagine, Washington Education Association spokeswoman Linda Mullen says, some stranger calling your boss and demanding that he fork over your private information.

“Public employees don’t believe that their personal information should be available through their employer,” Mullen says.

Even though most state employees are part of the voter registration database, there are some people, like, former state Sen. John Smith, where a birthdate might be necessary to narrow them down. For journalists, that’s an important step to take before accusing them of a crime.

Smith said he recalls being held at the Canadian border for several hours on Sept. 12, 2001, while being cross-referenced with all the other John Smiths.

“Apparently, then, there were over 75 with outstanding felony warrants,” Smith said.

The birth date exclusion bill that passed the House, at least, established an exemption for media outlets. I would still be able to get the full birth dates of public officials through records requests.

You probably wouldn’t, but that’s a privilege many journalists are uneasy with.

“We believe one should be able to access information about those who work for and on behalf of them, regardless of their profession,” the Society of Professional Journalists Western Washington wrote in a statement opposing House Bill 1888. “Gatekeeping who can and cannot access information is contrary to our belief that a thriving democracy relies on an informed public.”

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

Inslee should veto union-backed bill that weakens Washington public records law EDITORIAL STAFF Reprinted from THE NEWS TRIBUNE MARCH 12, 2020

G

ov. Jay Inslee, who’s long cast himself a strong believer in open government, has a chance to prove it. He should veto a bad bill that would exempt the birth month and year of state and local government employees from information released under Washington’s public records law.

House and Senate Democrats who pushed House Bill 1888 through the Legislature this year say it’s meant to protect government workers from prying eyes that mean them harm.

Spare us the piety, please. Washington law already protects people from stalkers, harassers and others with nefarious intent. A criminal case has yet to surface wherein a public employee’s identity was obtained through the state Public Records Act. Let’s call the bill what it really is — a backdoor attempt to block the inquiries of anti-union groups, chiefly the Freedom Foundation.

The conservative Olympia think tank is relentless about collecting public employee contacts and spamming workers with information about their right to reject union membership and dues payments — a right cemented in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, the Freedom Foundation exploited birth date access for political purposes.

But that’s no excuse for legislators to slam the door on open government, or to pick sides in a proxy war between unions and their foes.

Legislators this year and in previous sessions heard testimony from news organizations across Washington, including ours, on the dire consequences of excising birth dates from public records.

As first drafted, HB 1888 made the work of journalists who investigate public employees exponentially more difficult.

Blame unions, not Freedom Foundation, for latest attack on access to information The author(s) of The News Tribune’s March 12 editorial are absolutely correct that “(Gov. Jay) Inslee should veto (a) union-backed bill that weakens public records law.” But the language used to make this point is misleading because it appears to blame the Freedom Foundation rather than the lawless actions of the state’s government employee unions for creating the problem in the first place.

As you note, the Olympia-based Freedom Foundation is “relentless about collecting public employee contacts” in order to educate them about a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming that mandatory union membership, dues or fees in the public workplace amount to forced political speech — a violation of the First Amendment.

But The News Tribune cavalierly dismisses these important outreach efforts as “spamming workers” and accuses the Freedom Foundation of “exploit(ing) birthdate access for political purposes.”

This is nonsense.

The News Tribune and other media outlets insist they need access to the

Tracking government workers through database labyrinths filled with thousands of names can be challenging already; it would be much harder if they have a common name and no birth date to identify them.

In response, amendments were adopted creating exceptions for members of the news media, who would still be able to obtain full birth dates and photographs.

These were meant to be compromises that we in the Fourth Estate could live with. They are not. At least not this Editorial Board.

The 1972 voter-approved Public Records Act speaks clearly on this subject, saying that: “Agencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records, and such persons shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request.”

Translation: Professional journalists may be most likely to use the law, but the law doesn’t grant us special privileges

contact information of public employees in order to perform their legitimate role as the government’s watchdog. And that’s fine, but they don’t have a monopoly on good intentions.

Informing free Americans about newly reinforced Constitutional rights their union is working feverishly — and spending millions of their own dues dollars — to suppress is at least as noble a motive as anyone else has for wanting this information.

If the media resent having access to public information challenged, their anger should be directed at unions anxious to cover their tracks and at labor-beholden politicians who crafted an unconstitutional compromise that establishes two different standards for the same information.

Demanding the governor veto House Bill 1888 is entirely appropriate; expressing those wishes in terms that target the wrong party and validate the unions’ “divide-and-conquer” strategy isn’t.

— JEFF RHODES relative to private watchdog groups and ordinary concerned citizens.

HB 1888 also establishes a mandatory 10-day minimum delay before information can be released, giving employees time to hold things up in court. It also makes any information about payroll deductions off-limits, which should leave public-employee unions feeling very happy.

Any group that uses scare tactics to manipulate state law should be stopped, and right now there’s only one person who can do it.

It’s no secret that Democrat Inslee is a staunch defender of public employee interests, and it’s appropriate for him to see that they receive fair wages and benefits for the vital work they do.

But first and foremost, the governor represents Washington’s estimated 7.8 million residents, and he must stand up for their right to know the inner workings of the government they pay for.

Inslee should veto this bill and see it for what it is — a propaganda war he wants no part of.

other Voices In Our View: Lawmakers must do better for the good of public

Legislature OKs carve-out for media on birthdate disclosure

“The issue stems from efforts by the Freedom Foundation, a conservative group that has sought birthdates for the purpose of identifying members of public-employee unions. The organization uses the records to contact union members in efforts to reduce the size and influence of the unions ... Rather than persistently working to undermine the Public Records Act, lawmakers should be bolstering the law and its applications, recognizing that transparency is essential to democracy. While the exemption for media outlets is beneficial for The Columbian — media members often use birthdates to confirm criminal records or conduct background checks — if a loophole is good enough for the press it should be good enough for the public.”

“The Washington Legislature has passed a bill that exempts birthdates of state and local government employees from disclosure under the state’s public records law, but allows the media to continue to have access to them ... The fight over access to employee birthdates stems from a 2016 request from the Freedom Foundation, a conservative group that had been seeking disclosure of records of union-represented employees, so it could contact them as part of its effort to reduce the size and influence of public-sector unions. Several unions sought to stop the release of the records ... Under the measure, state and local government agencies also would be required to notify employees and their unions whenever a public request is made for employee information.”

7

8

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

GOP lawmakers using unions’ own tactics

O

utnumbered Republicans in both houses of the Oregon State Legislature have resorted to civil disobedience in their battle to kill the Democrats’ latest kooky cap-andtrade scheme. And predictably, the only group more outraged than the Left by the GOP lawmakers’ tactic are the labor leaders who all but pioneered it.

By JASON DUDASH, Oregon’s GOP legisOregon Director lators last week took the almost-unprecedented step of fleeing the state en masse rather than participate in a vote they believe has the potential to kill thousands of jobs and devastate the region’s economy. And by law, the Legislature cannot hold a vote unless at least a minimum number of lawmakers are present, so by denying the opposition a quorum, Republicans hope to either kill the bill or at least force Democrats to make concessions in how it’s applied.

Proponents of cap-and-trade insist it will lower the rate of carbon being emitted into the state’s atmosphere by 55 percent over the next 15 years by either fining polluters or allowing them to continue polluting — provided they successfully purchase a corresponding carbon credit from a company doing a better job of reducing its own emissions.

Critics say it’s nothing more than a tax camouflaged to look like something else, and they point to other states where overtaxed companies are moving away and taking their jobs and tax dollars with them.

Oregon Update

A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.

e Mor ey mon

SEIU 503

C Be ush ne ier fi ts LO nger Breaks

Less Work

“WALKING OFF THE JOB TO MAKE A POINT? WHO DO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS think they Are? government employee unions?”

Naturally, Democrats — who much prefer to simply to brush any objections aside procedurally — are apoplectic that their counterparts have discovered a strategy that gives the minority a tiny bit of leverage. Much to the delight of their typically frustrated constituents.

Republican representatives and senators report they’ve received tens of thousands of letters and emails of support urging them to “stay strong and stay gone.” The group Timber Unity — which was born during the 2019 session with the sole aim of stopping similar legislation — has since grown to more 58,000 members and last week hosted the single largest rally the Capitol has ever seen in opposition to cap and trade.

Also of note, 28 of Oregon’s 36 counties have signed declarations opposing the sweeping legislation.

Meanwhile, Oregon’s public-sector union leaders — apparently oblivious to irony — have come out strongly against the walkout. From tweets and podcasts, to rallies and initiative petitions — even going so far as to organize a new union front group, No More Co$tly Walkouts that has already spent over $130,000 on Facebook advertisements attacking House and Senate Republicans — government unions are once again investing their resources into hyper-partisan politics and away from their members.

However, these attacks and fake outrage seem a bit more hypocritical then we’re used to, even from them. The unions who are so outraged by the Republicans resorting to denying quorum are the same unions who just months ago were bragging about the number of strikes they held in 2019 in the name of solidarity.

Unions have never been shy about taking their ball and going home when they feel contract negotiations reached an impasse. But as normally seems to be true with unions, they seem to play by two different sets of rules.

Unions’ political wheeling and dealing scrutinized

I

n the days leading up to Super Tuesday, members of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Local 75 (AFSCME 75) and the Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA) received pieces of mail and emails using the union’s own words to showcase their lies.

Government unions, which have traditionally been political powerhouses for the left, have long claimed their political contributions do not come from dues dollars but rather from a separate PAC to which members can decide to voluntarily contribute.

Don’t believe it.

While it’s true most unions do have a separate political action fund that members can opt to contribute to in addition to their regular membership dues, the notion that they don’t spend any dues dollars on politics is demonstrably false.

Government unions today have only two objectives — raising taxes and growing government.

They will do anything and everything in their power to achieve those goals, including lying and using their

By JASON DUDASH, Oregon Director

members’ hard-earned money on electioneering to ensure left-wing liberals are put into office to do their bidding.

Thousands of Oregon’s AFSCME members were informed that their union was found guilty in Washington state courts for illegally concealing more than $41 million in political contributions taken directly from membership dues.

Similarly, OSEA’s own training document instructs staff to tell members that “(D)ues money is not used for political contributions … members voluntarily make a separate contribution to our political action fund.”

Members were less than pleased to learn of the OSEA’s $40,000 contribution to three of Oregon’s looniest liberals — Gov. Kate Brown, House Speaker Tina Kotek and former Democrat Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson — as highlighted in the union’s LM-2 report filed with the

Federal Department of Labor.

In addition to opt-outs and outrage, these pieces of mail seemed to have struck a particular chord with union members.

It’s one thing to discover you were lied to, but it’s something entirely different to know that the group who is supposedly charged with looking out for your best interests has been taking your money and using it to advance political causes that are directly at odds with your personal beliefs.

It is precisely for this reason that Oregon’s government unions have seen some of the biggest membership defections in the entire nation. OSEA in particular, has seen nearly 40 percent of their members leave in just the 20 short months since the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME, which affirmed public employees’ constitutional rights to opt out of government union dues.

Until union leaders decide to care about public employees as much as they do about partisan politics and paying their cushy six-figure salaries, they can expect membership to continue to decline.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

Public pensions close to bankrupting state

C

alifornia broke a record recently, though taxpayers probably don’t have much to celebrate. For the first time ever, a public servant has retired with a yearly pension greater than $400,000.

There’s not an extra zero there. That’s $400,000 every year until they pass away.

Curtis Ishii retired from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the state agency which manages retirement funds for nearly every government employee in California, at age 64. With more than 40 years of public service on his record, and a whopping salary of $688,000 during his last year, Mr. Ishii is set for life (on the taxpayer’s dime).

Mind you, public employees entering the work force today could never achieve a pension quite like this. In 2013, the state of California, apparently discovering its pension system was laughably broken, passed a new law that limited the amount a public servant could pull in pension benefits.

After 2013, new employees can still enjoy up to $152,000 per year in pension benefits.

Currently, the state has more than 80,000 “gold-plated” pensions — that is, pensions that pay out more than $100,000 each year.

By SAM COLEMAN, Outreach Director

Of course, no one’s saying public employees should have no pension. However, the question of what’s fair to employees — to say nothing of the taxpayers who shoulder that cost — is one we shouldn’t be afraid to consider.

The average household income in California for 2017 (the most recent available statistic) was $71,805. According to the new 2013 law regarding pensions, many career public employees in California could retire while collecting twice as much as the average working family makes in a year.

While the average public pension is much lower than this number, about $37,000 per year, it’s important to remember that not everyone who works in public service does so for their entire career. This number, regularly used by state employee unions like SEIU 1000 as a way of explaining that the pension crisis isn’t a crisis, is misleading at best.

Much to the chagrin of unions like SEIU 1000, the facts don’t lie. According to CalPERS, public employee pensions are only partially funded. The state only has assets to payout 71percent of

the benefits it’s promised, and that number isn’t improving.

One day in the not-so-distant future, California will have to find a way to make

Federal Investigation into UAW Widens as UC Santa Barbara Paid Student Instructors Strike

A

wyear and a half after the fact, America’s government employee unions are still in denial over the extent of their defeat in Janus v. AFSCME. Paid grad students working as instruction aides at the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) went on strike last week, citing their objection to a proposed cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).

They were acting in solidarity with UC Santa Cruz (UCSC) student employees, who had been striking for the previous two weeks over the same issue.

While the amount of the COLA changes by campus, UCSB strikers are demanding a monthly amount of $1,807 given to all graduate student instrictors regardless of their actual salary. Many graduate students are declaring a wildcat strike.

This isn’t your typical strike endorsed, or even organized, by a union. Unlike other forms of strikes, which are generally legal for public employees in California, a “wildcat” strike is unsanctioned by the union and does not follow the typical rules for conflict resolution and avoiding impasses.

In a bold reaction to the wildcat strike, UCSC administrators sent more than 50 termination notices to graduate students for refusing to do their jobs. As part of the strike, USCS graduate students refused to submit grades for the classes they work with.

While it’s unfortunate these employees lost their jobs, many believe strikes like

good on its promises, and it simply won’t be able to.

A better solution would have been to keep a better eye on the purse strings in

Spotlight on

California

By SAMUEL COLEMAN, California Outreach Director

this are part of a deliberate plan to divert interest away from an even larger issue.

Many University of California employees, including graduate students, are represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW), which has been caught in an ever-widening federal probe into corruption for the past four years.

In a recent breakthrough, former President Gary Jones was indicted for embezzlement of union funds, along with other crimes. A recently unsealed indictment accuses Jones of misusing more than $1 million of union money for extravagant meals, golf outings, apparels and cigars even before he was elected president in 2018.

In 2018, Jones lead the union in a 40-day strike against General Motors.

It was recently discovered the investigation stemmed from a 2015 federal probe that resulted in several Fiat Chrysler executives being sentenced on charges that they allowed UAW officials to divert money from worker training to personal travel and shopping.

This led to GM filing a lawsuit and accusing Fiat Chrysler of bribing union officials to get a leg up on the company in contract negotiations. One must wonder if these events are linked at all, perhaps by corruption.

Following this thread, those with some

A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Golden State.

extra spending money looking for a nice property in Onaway, Mich., can now buy the $1.3 million scandal-plagued vacation home of former UAW President Dennis Williams, who preceded Jones in the position, which is rumored to have been paid for by Detroit automakers with non-union labor.

The property was put on the market in order to avoid the appearance of corruption.

Too little too late.

With the indictment of Jones, at least 14 officials have been formally indicted in a wide range of crimes.

While UAW might not care about its dues-payers, the Freedom Foundation will always stand behind public employees who choose to exercise their constitutional right to cease paying union dues.

9

10

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION

FREEDOM in ACTION

FAN MAIL “People would not answer my questions about opting out within my workplace. Then I found your website, and it’s fantastic.

Thank you so much for your help and for what you do.”

– DEE n

n

Spokesman-Review Photo

n

“Thank you for checking up on this. It’s nice to know someone is out there trying to make sure the right thing is done!”

– DEBRA n

n

n

“I would like to share my sincere thanks to the Freedom Foundation for providing information on how to withdraw from the union and stop the payroll deduction for union dues.”

– MICHELLE n

n

n

“Thank you for the work that your group is doing. Furthermore, thank you for making the process easy, you are helping many public employees and I know we all appreciate your dedication.”

– JAY n

n

n

“The union was taking about $80 out of my paycheck every month, until your organization helped me get my money back and stop these deductions.

Thank you so much.”

– JENNY

n

n

n

“Thank you Maxford! That was exactly what I was concerned about. I really appreciate what your organization is doing, and I wish more of my coworkers were willing to opt out. We’ve had some unheard of legal arguments happening lately and it all seems to be “money driven”. So, I feel now I’ve taken my horse out of that race, and they can fight over everyone else’s money.

Personally, I’m investing mine dues and should have an extra $10k in my retirement account.”

– JENNIFER CORFEE

Spokane County Commissioners Josh Kerns and Al French both support public negotiations with county employees, and a recent brief from the county’s legal team supports neighboring Lincoln County in its effort to hold open negotiations with unions.

Spokane County backs legal effort to compel public worker unions to bargain in public eye Feb. 24, 2020

By REBECCA WHITE Reprinted from the Spokesman-Review

S

pokane County has filed a brief in support of Lincoln County’s case that will determine whether counties can force unions that represent their employees to negotiate wages and benefits in public.

Lincoln County’s case started after it passed a rule in 2016 requiring its unions unions to negotiate in public.

One union agreed to the requirement after its members said they would prefer a contract to a drawn-out dispute.

The other union refused to meet with the county in public, and the county refused to meet with the union in private, leading both parties to file unfair labor practice complaints.

A Washington state commission that weighs in on public labor disputes ruled that both parties must agree to ground rules and negotiate in private if they can’t agree; that case is currently being appealed.

Spokane County passed a resolution similar to Lincoln County’s in 2018, but did not attempt to enforce it until 2020 because no contracts were open.

Al French, chairman of the Spokane County Commission, did not respond to a request for comment Friday but has argued that most of the Spokane area wants such a reform because the city of Spokane’s voters overwhelmingly approved an open meeting requirement in November.

Spokane County was the

largest employer in the state to approve such a requirement when commissioners French and Josh Kerns, who have argued that the practice improves transparency, passed a resolution requiring unions to negotiate in public in 2018.

Commissioner Mary Kuney was traveling when Kerns and French approved the requirement, but said in an interview last month that she would have preferred if they had waited until Lincoln County’s case over the same issue had been resolved.

Spokane County is negotiating ground rules for bargaining with the union that represents jail employees, part of the Washington State Council of County and City Employees.

By 2021, about 1,500 county employees’ contracts will expire.

Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Spokane County, John Driscoll, argued in the brief the county filed that Spokane County does have the authority, because it manages the public’s funds, to require labor negotiations be in public.

The county argued that their requirement is a nationwide trend and “sound public policy,” because paying for personnel is often one of the most expensive parts of local government.

The state law requiring certain government meetings to be open to the public has an exception for collective bargaining, but Spokane County argues the law allows governments to require unions to negotiate with

them in public, according to the brief.

Gordon Smith, staff representative for the majority of the county’s unionized workers who are members of the Washington State Council Of County And City Employees, said he was concerned that the brief, and the county’s decision to require negotiators to meet in public, was political. He argued that there are other ways to make negotiations more transparent, such as releasing minutes of the meetings or having them mostly public and some parts in executive session, but the county has not accepted those compromises.

“If they’re sincere (about transparency), that’s one thing,” he said. “But if this is about throwing sand in the gears of the process, that’s another.”

Smith also argued the Freedom Foundation, an organization that advocates for policies that weaken public employee unions, has put pressure on local governments to open up meetings, or pushed other polices to encourage members to opt out of being in the union or defund them in other ways.

“Private negotiations are working fine, and they have been for decades,” he said.

Jared Webley, a spokesman for the county, said on Feb. 24 that the county was still in talks with the union to negotiate ground rules.

Smith said he is willing to continue negotiating with the county to try to get to a con-

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

11

FREEDOM in the NEWS ONLINE

Feb. 27, 2020

After Oklahoma Republicans Side with OEA, Union Touts Transgender Reading Program “According to Opt Out Today, a project of the Freedom Foundation, of the $466 in dues paid by an Oklahoma teacher to the OEA in 2017-18, $189 went to Washington, D.C. to the NEA. That money helps directly and indirectly fund NEA programs and events like the Jazz & Friends National Day of School & Community Readings.”

ONLINE

March 5, 2020

ON

ONLINE

March 4, 2020

West Coast Conservative Group Attempting to Sway Public Employees to Leave Unions “Another conservative group has announced it’s coming to Pennsylvania to fight ‘union bullies.’(T)he Freedom Foundation (has) ... announced it will begin knocking on doors, phone banking and mass-texting public-sector union employees, encouraging them to leave their unions.

Pennsylvania is the fifth state the Freedom Foundation has entered and the second in the Rust Belt.”

IN PRINT

Feb. 9, 2020

Freedom Foundation Adds Hines as OutReach Director for Ohio Office

Editorial: Forgeries show why union elections need secret ballots

“The Freedom Foundation, a member of the conservative State Policy Network, announced it has hired Connor Hines as its Ohio outreach director. The public policy organization says its goal is to expose and eliminate “abuses of public employee unions.” It is located in Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania and California.”

“Fortunately, these workers found the Freedom Foundation, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to worker freedom and opposing coerced unionism. It has sued on their behalf. The Freedom Foundation has filed similar lawsuits in Oregon and California, too. Last year it settled another forgery case, this one in Washington, for $28,000.”

Anti-Worker?

Our union adversaries are fond of telling their members the Freedom Foundation doesn’t have their best interests at heart.

The question is, do they?

What could be better for anyone than having the freedom to make up their own mind?

That’s what we work every day to make sure workers have ... while government employee unions work just as hard to keep it from them.

Maybe it’s not so much that we’re anti-worker as it is that government employee unions are

Pro-Corruption

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 Feb. 28 On Feb. 27, the Washington State Legislature considered whether or not citizens, public employees and journalists could observe as Gov. Jay Inslee’s team negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement with the various unions that have donated heavily to his campaign. On Feb. 28, They decided against it. While considering the state budget, the state Senate heard an amendment offered by Sen. Mark Schoesler that would “facilitate the taxpayers’ understanding of public employee bargaining and its fiscal impact on the state budget” by allowing public observation. The amendment was defeated with of 20 Republicans and one Democrat voting “yes” and 28 Democrats voting “no.”

March 4 The Freedom Foundation announces Connor Hines will join its just-opened Ohio office as outreach director. Hines, a native of Westerville and a graduate of John Carroll University, previously served as regional field director for the

Republican Party of Wisconsin and as campaign manager for the Ohio House Republican Organizational Campaign Committee (OHROCC). With the Freedom Foundation, he will be responsible for establishing a grassroots organization of Freedom Foundation supporters and for informing Ohio public employees of their rights under the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which allows government employees to have the choice to opt out of their unions and cease paying dues.

March 6 The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announces a final regulation extending financial transparency requirements to certain trusts operated by labor unions. The new rule implements a Freedom Foundation recommendation to make unions and their affiliates more accountable for their use of funds provided by employers and intended to be used for employees’ benefit.

March 17 In response to a January 2020 request from Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain, the Texas Attorney General’s Office is in the process of preparing a formal opinion as to the implications of Janus v. AFSCME for union dues collection from Texas public employees. As part of the process, the

BY THE NUMBERS As of March 5, the Freedom Foundation has assisted 70,000 public employees in opting-out of their government union since the Janus decision n

n

n

Thanks to Freedom Foundation’s outreach efforts, 112 public employees chose freedom on Jan. 5 by opting out of their unions. So far, the highest oneday opt-out total for 2020.

Attorney General requested public comments on the matter. The Freedom Foundation submitted comments to the Attorney General’s Office explaining the legal ramifications of Janus and recommending a series of steps the state should take to ensure it is properly protecting its employees’ rights.

March 18 The Freedom Foundation files suit on behalf of community college employees Kristine Kurk and Dawn Woltkamp, respectively, arguing their union, the Los Rios Classified Employee Association (LRCEA) and the College District violated the First Amendment Rights of both women by requiring them to associate with an organization they did not support and pay dues to fund political speech with which they disagree.

LET’S BE CLEAR...

When I wrote in Federalist 10 about Factions that become a problem when they obtain political power AND put their OWN interests above the common good, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC. I WAS REFERRING TO Goevrnment unions.”