25 minute read
Governor Inslee booed off stage over mask order
Inslee booed off stage over mask order
Reprinted from the YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC
Advertisement
June 30, 2020
(PASCO, Wash.) — Washington Gov. Jay Inslee was heckled and had to cut short his speech Tuesday on battling the coronavirus pandemic in Eastern Washington.
Speaking outdoors at Columbia Basin College in Pasco, Inslee was repeatedly interrupted by hecklers as he urged residents to wear masks to prevent the spread of the virus.
“Open it up,’’ one heckler shouted in an apparent reference to widespread business closures in the Tri-Cities of Richland, Pasco and Kennewick.
The community is still in Stage I of the pandemic, which means most businesses are shut down.
The heckling continued as a masked Inslee spoke. Finally the Democratic governor, who used to represent the Tri-Cities in the U.S.
House, had had enough.
“We’re going to go inside,’’ he said.
Once inside, Inslee resumed his comments, and wondered why people continued to question the effectiveness of masks.
“We need to pull together,’’ he said. “If we mask up, we can open up.’’
Inslee noted that a large number of TriCities leaders, including former U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, local politicians and physicians were all publicly urging people to wear masks.
“No one voted for those people out in the courtyard today,” Inslee said of the protesters.
“This is a pandemic,’’ the governor added. “Only a community response can be successful.’’
The Tri-Cities, located in southeastern Washington state, is one of the state’s COVID-19 hotspots. Benton and Franklin counties com bined have more than 3,000 confirmed cases of the virus and detected cases are rapidly growing. Inslee recently ordered that resi- dents of Washington must wear masks when in public, and that has drawn intense criticism from some people.
Inslee says mandatory face masks can help slow spread of virus
By ALFRED CHARLES July 7, 2020 A group of Washington citizens filed a lawsuit through the Freedom Foundation that challenges the constitutionality of the governor’s order, say ing it infringes on their right to free speech. The plaintiffs argue its unenforceable and they be lieve there is little scientific evidence that masks work. Lead attorney Shella Sadovnik said people who refuse to wear masks are being harassed, like she L a w s u i t was. “I am 6 months preg nant and it’s very difficult for me to breathe,” she said. “So, wearing a face mask is not an option for me.”
c h a l l e n g e s Freedom Foundation files lawsuit, calls Inslee’s mask mandate ‘over-reach’
July 7, 2020
Governor’s no-mask, no-sevice order takes effect in Washington IAN DAVIS-LEONARD — July 7, 2020 Last week, the Freedom Foundation , a national pub lic policy organization based in Olympia, filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven Washingtonians seeking an injunc tion to the mask requirement as “relief for the violation of civil rights and liberties,” the complaint said. Freedom Foundation sues Washington, calls masks ‘junk science’ RYAN J. FARRICK — July 7, 2020 The Freedom Foundation is suing Washington state over a recently enacted order requiring residents to wear face masks in public. Washington requires mask use both in public places and in private businesses. While state Gov. Jay Inslee says he ex - pects most residents to comply without threat of consequence, enforcement of penalties for refusing to wear masks remains an option. However, the Freedom Foundation has questioned whether state Gov. Jay Inslee and Secretary of Health John Wiesman have sufficient constitutional authority to enact and enforce such rules. Their lawsuit, notes KOMO, requests an injunction against the order’s enforcement. An advocacy group has filed a lawsuit challenging Washington’s mask mandate, and whether Governor Inslee and Secretary of Health John Wiesman have the authority to issue such an order. The lawsuit was filed by the Freedom Foundation , a non-profit organization with offices in Washington, Or - egon, Ohio and California. According to its website, the Freedom Foundation’s mission is to “advance in - dividual liberty, free enter - prise, and limited, account - able government.” The organization has equated the mask mandate in Washington to “government F r e e - d o m F o u n d a t i o n No-mask, no service rule takes effect Last week, the Freedom Foundation , a national public policy organization based in Olympia, filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven Washingtonians seeking an injunction to the mask requirement as “relief for the violation of civil rights and liberties,” the complaint said. “Anyone can file a lawsuit who wants to waste their money, and we believe we are in very firm con stitutional and statutory grounds,” Inslee said, citing several previous resolutions that upheld the consti tutionality of mask ordi nances. In addition to requiring face masks, the governor’s proclamation also requires employer cooperation with COVID-19 investigations by public health authori ties and compliance with any other orders or direc tives.
We Just want to protect Election laws.
New filing in election law case reveals Our Oregon’s hypocrisy for all to see
By JASON DUDASH, Oregon Director
tice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme
Court has struck down so-called Blaine Amendments present in many state laws and constitutions, including the Oregon Constitution.
The obsolete language is the entirety of Article 1, Section 5, which reads “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religeous (sic), or theological institution, nor shall any money be appropriated for the payment of any religeous (sic) services in either house of the Legislative Assembly.”
The decision, arising from the case of Espinoza et al. v. Montana Department of Revenue et al, allows states to create a voucher system of payment for K-12 education in which state funds can be used at private institutions of education, including those operated by religious bodies.
Blaine Amendments have a dark history based in bigotry, discrimination and religious intolerance. As states were joining the union during the 19th century, Maine U.S. Sen. James G. Blaine — an anti-Catholic bigot — made sure their admittance was dependent on adoption of a law or section in their constitution that forbid state money from being disbursed to religious entities.
At the time, almost all of non-pubI n an ironic gaffe, new documents filed by Our Oregon in U.S. District Court assert the union-backed nonprofit seeks to protect Oregon election laws by breaking them.
The evidence comes by way of Our Oregon’s July 9 motion to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit against the Oregon Secretary of State, People Not Politicians v. Clarno, which challenges the secretary’s signature-gathering requirements for ballot initiatives during COVID-19.
Our Oregon opposes the plaintiffs’ position that their petition should be granted additional time and a lower By MIKE NEARMAN, Senior Fellow lic education was run by the Catholic Church. Public education was very Protestant at the time, and these laws solidified their monopoly.
Though created to give Protestants an advantage over Catholics, Blaine Amendment-type laws today serve a different monopoly — public teachers’ unions — and prevent legislation that would allow the money to “follow the student.”
Roberts summarized the case in the first paragraph of the decision:
“The Montana Legislature established a program to provide tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools. The program grants a tax credit to anyone who donates to certain organizations that, in turn, award scholarships to selected students attending such schools. When petitioners sought to use the scholarships at a religious school, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the program.”
Oregon Update
A closer look at the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.
threshold of signatures due to the conditions brought on by the pandemic. The organization claims it is a “watchdog” of the process.
In reality, it’s Our Oregon that needs to be watched.
In the motion, Our Oregon claims it “is opposed to (the petition) and would be involved in organizing a campaign against it if it were to qualify for the Nov, 3, 2020 ballot.” (emphasis added).
Even worse, an accompanying sworn declaration submitted by Our Oregon executive director Becca Uherbelau states that, “(A)llowing the Chief Petitioners to submit after the constitutional deadline (and at a lower threshold) would make it exponentially more difficult for Our Oregon, or anyone else, to organize an opposition campaign to IP 57. It takes months to build and fund a coalition in opposition to a ballot measure.” (emphasis added).
What Our Oregon neglected to mention is that it’s not allowed to work on ballot measure campaigns without registering as a PAC — i.e, after a petition qualifies for the ballot — and it’s currently under investigation by the Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney general for doing exactly that.
The Freedom Foundation has filed the new evidence with the Secretary of State to aid in her ongoing investigation.
“We have accused Our Oregon of a lot of things, and rightfully so,” said Freedom Foundation Oregon Director Jason Dudash. “But we’ve never accused them of being the sharpest tools in the shed. They’ve essentially admitted to what we’ve accused them of in documents before a federal court.”
“It’s an ironic twist that they’re posing as defending the Secretary of State at the same time that the Secretary is investigating them for their serial elec
Public unions mourn death of Blaine Amendments
In an opinion delivered by Chief Jus
tion law violations”. that was struck down by this decision. Unaffected states include Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia.
In concluding his decision, Justice Roberts identifies this as a religious liberty issue.
“(T)his Court has repeatedly upheld government programs that spend taxpayer funds on equal aid to religious observers and organizations, particularly when the link between government and religion is attenuated by private choices. A school, concerned about government involvement with its religious activities, might reasonably decide for itself not to participate in a government program. But we doubt that the school’s liberty is enhanced by eliminating any option to participate in the first place.”
Look for a blossoming of state voucher programs in states that have legislatures friendly to this type of aid. Voucher programs are seen as particularly liberating to communities which are struggling economically, as they allow everyone to send their children to private schools, not just the wealthy.
SEIU continues to hemorrhage members during difficult times
It isn’t often you see a union screw up so badly that hundreds of its members jump ship all at once.
It’s certainly happened before. Case in point, the Freedom Foundation’s current lawsuit against CSLEA in which 130 lifeguards attempted to opt out in a single day.
But it’s still uncommon.
Unless you’re SEIU 1000, the largest union for state workers in California.
As we recently chronicled, SEIU has a leadership problem and has been bleeding members — more than 5,000 in the last two years. During the past three months, more than 900 SEIU 1000 dues payers have severed their connection to the famously
By SAMUEL COLEMAN, Outreach Director
terrible union.
But recently, and especially during June, public employees all over California are starting to feel the heat from COVID-related shutdowns.
Take, for example, city of Santa Barbara employees, primarily unionized by SEIU, where 400 employees are facing layoffs due to budget deficits.
Unions have long claimed they alone are looking out for public employees’ paychecks, but there’s a new sheriff in town — the individual employees are looking out for their own paycheck now.
In the past month alone, more than 1,200 public employees in California have responded to the Freedom Foundation’s outreach and parted ways with their union.
The message is simple — times are tough. Due to budget deficits, the failure of some of the most prominent unions in California to effectively bargain and falling tax revenues, public employees are looking at a bleak nearby future.
But you don’t have to keep
The Butterfly Effect of Janus on its second anniversary offers California hope amid the chaos
paying the people who don’t give you anything in return.
Opting out of union dues saves the average employee $800 per year and removes a small but meaningful amount of money from a private organization that never deserved it in the first place.
For this reason, we’ve sent hundreds of thousands of emails to public employees across California letting them know how to give themselves their own stimulus package.
On the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME (2018), we’re happy so many public employees are joining the celebration.
By BOB WICKERS Reprinted from the CALIFORNIA GLOBE
As Americans grapple with a pandemic, economic collapse and riots, it seems an appropriate time to revisit a tenant of Chaos Theory — the so-called Butterfly Effect.
The Butterfly Effect examines the possibility that a small event can have a profound impact — posing the hypothetical question, “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wing in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas?”
While the origins of a tornado may be difficult to trace back to a single insect’s wing, we do know a virus infecting a single human being last year — over 6,000 miles away from California — resulted in a government-mandated shutdown of the largest state economy in the U.S., more than 2.5 million Californians out of work, and freedoms forfeited.
But often, the butterfly effect brings hope rather than despair.
When an Illinois public servant took a job as a child support specialist over a decade ago, he was forced — as a condition of employment — to pay dues to a government union he wasn’t even a member of and whose political agenda he didn’t agree with.
This violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association.
Mark Janus took that union — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) — to court in 2015 and, after lower court defeats and appeals, ultimately won a generational, game-changing victory in the highest court in the nation.
This week marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which freed millions of public-sector workers throughout the country from union bondage.
Here in California, Janus’ Butterfly Effect has been profound.
My organization, the Freedom Foundation, has leveraged the ruling to help nearly 30,000 California workers leave their government union and stop having
Spotlight on dues deducted from their checks. This has signifi- increased take-home pay workers and their families, paycantly for California a much-needed income boost during a terrible economy, and cost unions over $25 milA closer look at lion a year- forever. the successes
The Freedom Foundation being achieved recently completed a first-of-itskind comprehensive study of California government union membership in the first year after the Janus by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Golden State. decision.
To complete the study, we submitted 450 public records requests and spent more than 300 hours compiling information; analyzed payroll data from 74 school districts (including the state’s four largest districts) and nearly 100,000 state workers; and studied more than 100 U.S Department of Labor and IRS union compliance recent pay cut ports. for state em
The study found over 125,200 fewer ployees and the government union dues-paying members undemocratic in California one year after Janus, an 11 practices and percent drop that cost unions an estimatpoor leadership of ed $100 million in lost revenue – money Yvonne Walker, SEIU Local 1000’s presthey no longer can spend on political ident, has helped convince an additional influence. 950 government workers to leave their
More specifically: union and keep more of what they earn. n Service Employees International In two relatively short years, Janus Union (SEIU) & AFSCME county and has brought renewed freedom to over municipal lost 42,200 members; a million state, county, and municipal n SEIU Local 1000 (California state employees in California; giving them employees) lost 35,700; the right to choose — for the first time n the California School Employees Asin more than four decades — whether to sociation (CSEA) lost 31,000; and, associate with, and financially support, a n the California Teachers Association government union. (CTA) lost 16,300 after already losing And for California, Janus has provid19,000 members when the California ed real hope that we can one day level Faculty Association dissociated from the the playing field by breaking the stranCTA. glehold government unions have
More recently, the Freedom Foundaover our politicians, policies, and politics. tion’s aggressive outreach and litigation This is just the beginning. efforts during Gov. Gavin Newsom’s shutdown of the California economy, Bob Wickers is the Freedom Foundacombined with his promise of a 10 pertion’s California director.
FREEDOM in ACTION
From Facebook:
“Most of that is the fault of the Freedom Foundation. If government workers hadn’t been given the ability to opt out of forced deductions the public-sector unions wouldn’t have had to resort to forging signatures. Now, instead of a nice, comfortable Tammany Hall situation, they’re having to commit felonies in order to thrive.”
— MICHAEL FARLEY
Emails:
– RAYMOND S., Wash.
n n n “I just heard about your victory regarding the ridiculous and mandatory mask order in Thurston County!
Thank you for fighting for the people of Washington state. This news is not spreading fast enough; in fact it’s probably it’s being suppressed.
We are being constantly oppressed by Inslee! We cannot fight him on our own!
Please, please help the rest of Washington as his illegal “order” is statewide…”
ANGELA S., Wash.
n n n “Three cheers for you! I heard someone from the Freedom Foundation on the radio the other day and I wanted to thank you for your awesome work.”
– J. NOICE, Wash.
n n n “Thank you for filing a lawsuit against this b******t mask in public places nonsense.”
Slidewaters closing — for now
News Release
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee on July 20 took another huge step in his quest to make an example of anyone who dares question his COVID-19 edicts.
The owners of Slidewaters, a popular water park situated on the banks of Lake Chelan in North-Central Washington, on July 10 were denied an injunction that would have allowed the facility to remain open pending a full hearing on the case.
Cousins Burke and Robert Bordner had opened the attraction more or less on time during June and had managed to keep it open for a month in defiance of Inslee’s stay-home edict.
They had intended to defy the latest court ruling, too, but on July 16, Inslee’s Department of Labor and Industries issued a Notice of Immediate Restraint and a Citation and Notice of Assessment demanding Slidewaters close by July 20.
In a written statement, the Bordners said, “(B)ecause of the additional harm and suffering being brought against us from the actions of … Jay Inslee and the Department of (L&I), we had no choice but to lay off our 150 employees and suspend our season.”
Represented by the Freedom Foundation, they plan to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But it’s unlikely the case could be heard this summer, putting Slidewaters’ future in jeopardy.
“This is great news for the state of Washington,” Inslee crowed at a press conference on June 16, announcing that the park will be fined $10,000 for defying his orders.
Collective bargaining for Colorado state employees a win for Big Labor, a major setback for taxpayers, workers
By MAXFORD NELSEN Reprinted from the DENVER POST
June 30, 2020
Gov. Jared Polis recently signed into law HB 20-1153, a long-sought union priority permitting collective bargaining by nearly 30,000 unionized state employees.
While employees certainly deserve a voice in the workplace, HB 20-1153 is fundamentally a political move, passed along party-lines, designed to empower a permanent interest group propped up by taxpayers.
Rep. Daneya Esgar, D-Pueblo, the bill’s sponsor, contended the legislation will let state workers “advocate for higher wages, better working conditions, and the well-being of themselves and their families through collective bargaining.”
Of course, nothing prevented state workers from advocating for themselves and petitioning public officials just like any other interest or activist group. If anything, state employees already had special ability to petition government under an executive order issued by then-Gov. Bill Ritter in 2007 obligating the state to bargain with state employee unions over workplace matters.
In reality, HB 20-1153 saddles state workers with an unaccountable, one-size-fits-all, onceand-for-all union.
The legislation automatically recognizes Colorado WINS — the union that came to represent state workers under Ritter’s executive order — as employees’ sole representative.
Further, the law places all covered employees in a single bargaining unit on behalf of which Colorado WINS will negotiate a single contract. To discourage unions from prioritizing certain employee groups over others in bargaining, labor laws typically have a government board define appropriate bargaining units so that employees in each perform similar work and share similar interests.
Lumping all 30,000 state workers into a single unit is a recipe for union leadership to play favorites at the bargaining table.
Unfortunately, employees have little recourse should they eventually sour on Colorado WINS’s representation. The law provides the union can only be decertified during a 30-day period every four years. Just calling for a vote requires getting a third of the bargaining unit — more than 10,000 people — to petition for de
Think of it as a state-sanctioned monopoly designating Colorado WINS as the sole provid
er of workplace representation to state workers, certification or a different union.
indefinitely.
Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, individual employees dissatisfied with the union can at least refuse to support it financially.
But HB 20-1153 undermines that constitutional right, too. The law grants the union access to new-hire orientations so it can pressure employees into signing up for membership. It also requires the state to furnish employees’ personal contact information — including home address, phone numbers, and emails — to the union. Even if an employee opts-out of the automatic data sharing, the union stills receive their work contact information.
Most insidiously, the bill requires the state to deduct union dues directly from employees’ paychecks. Payroll deduction of union dues is a relic of the industrial age rendered largely obsolete by credit cards and electronic fund transfers and, in government, means taxpayers subsidize union fundraising. Its main purpose is to maximize unions’ ability to collect dues by minimizing employees’ control over their own paychecks.
For instance, HB 20-1153 lets the union secure dues deduction authorizations from employees in writing, electronically or even telephonically at any time. To cancel dues withholdings, however, employees must object in writing to the union — not the state, which actually processes the deductions — during an annual 30-day window.
Beyond the obvious double-standard, other states that have similarly given unions control over their payroll systems have already experienced abuse as blatant as unions forging employees’ signatures on membership forms.
Also concerning is that the law exempts union contract negotiations from normal state open government rules, meaning taxpayers can’t observe negotiations or review bargaining proposals, even though they must fund and live with the results. That the governor will bargain behind-closed-doors with a union that endorsed and heavily invested in his election campaign makes the arrangement even more unseemly.
While a victory for Big Labor, Colorado’s state workers and taxpayers will grapple with the fallout from HB 20-1153 for decades to come.
ON AIR
July 7, 2020
FREEDOM in the NEWS
ON
ON AIR
July 7, 2020
New lawsuit challenges Washington state’s mask mandate
“A lawsuit filed in Washington state is challenging the new government order requiring everyone in the state to wear a face covering in public places and private businesses to slow the spread of coronavirus.The suit, filed by the Freedom Foundation on behalf of a group of citizens, questions whether Gov. Jay Inslee and Secretary of Health John John Wiesman have the constitutional authority to mandate people wearing masks in public and on private property.”
IN PRINT
July 8, 2020
“An advocacy group has filed a lawsuit challenging Washington’s mask mandate, and whether Gov. Jay Inslee and Secretary of Health John Wiesman have the authority to issue such an order. The lawsuit was filed by the Freedom Foundation, a non-profit organization with offices in Washington, Oregon, Ohio and California.”
IN PRINT
July 8, 2020
Immunity for youths should be the goal
“Thank heaven for the Freedom Foundation, which has filed a lawsuit against this ridiculous order. According to a recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from (COVID-19) infection … In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
WSU Begins Analyzing COVID-19 Samples, as Testing Supplies Run Short and Results Lag
“On the day the statewide mandate went into effect, the Freedom Foundation, a conservative organization, announced it was filing a lawsuit questioning the state’s authority to issue such an order. The face covering directive is the definition of government overreach,” Aaron Withe, the foundation’s national director, said in a news release.”
State of the Unions: Two Years After Janus
By AARON WITHE Reprinted from REDSTATE.com
June 30, 2020
It’s been exactly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court made its landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME. And to no one’s surprise, government unions have done everything possible to behave as though it never happened.
Janus affirmed the constitutional right of every government employee in the country to opt out of their union and stop paying dues and fees. Prior to the ruling, public employees like teachers and bureaucrats were forced to pay dues to a union regardless of their wishes.
Labor bosses claimed Janus was President Trump’s attack on working families. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) President Lee Saunders described the ruling as “… a purely political attack on the freedoms of working people. The true motivation behind this case is to satisfy the agenda of wealthy and powerful political donors who have spent tens of millions of dollars to, as they have said in their own words, ‘defund and defang’ the American labor movement.”
What Saunders failed to mention are the steps his union is taking to prevent working families from exercising their rights.
In the two years since Janus, AFSCME and other government unions have created various schemes to silence the voices of workers who wished to leave their union.
First, Saunders ran an aggressive propaganda campaign to intimidate any public employee thinking about leaving his or her union.
He labeled them “free-riders” and encouraged shop stewards to publicize their
names so co-workers would know who to ostracize.
He then attacked my organization, the Freedom Foundation, for informing public employees about their rights under Janus.
Government unions, like Saunders’ AFSCME, have filed frivolous lawsuits, worked with their elected cronies to change laws targeting the Freedom Foundation, set up shell organizations to attack our staff and board members, protested our events and even mailed our staff’s neighbors and stalked them at their homes.
These intimidation tactics are simply an unsuccessful effort to prevent us from informing public employees that they can leave their unions.
Why are the unions so worried? Because when people learn their rights, they opt out in droves.
To prevent as many defections as possible, union leaders hid fine print in new membership cards only permitting employees to opt out during a 10-day annual window.
They then mobilized union operatives to pressure government employees to sign them — if possible, without disclosing what they were signing.
Some refused to sign. No matter. The Freedom Foundation has documented dozens of cases in which the union officials simply forged their signatures on membership cards and submitted them anyway.
Despite the unions’ best efforts, the Freedom Foundation has been able to successfully run a robust opt-out campaign and sue unions for their illegal activities.
And the results have been overwhelming.
In Oregon alone, more than a third of all state employees have left the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and more than 35 percent of classified school employees have left the local American Federation of Teachers (AFT).
In Washington State, more than 29 percent of state employees have left AFSCME.
Tens of thousands of public employees in California have left their government unions because of our aggressive outreach. In the last three months alone, nearly 1,000 SEIU 1000 public employees have fled their sinking union.
While government unions in other parts of the country have largely avoided huge membership losses thanks to shady tactics and friendly pro-union governors, the Freedom Foundation has proven a dedicated effort to inform, defend and free public employees can succeed.
Aaron Withe is the National Director of the Freedom Foundation, a free-market organization committed to helping free public-sector employees from union tyranny.
