Freedom matters fall winter 2017

Government Employee Unions

Fall/Winter 2017

Volume 2, No. 2

ON TRIAL

Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear Janus v. AFSCME a Potential Game-Changer for Labor and the Left.

A Publication of the Freedom Foundation

PAGE 2 n FREEDOM MATTERS

CEO’s Message

T

he United States is without question the most blessed

nation in theofhistory of thisinplanet when itthat comes We’re on the cusp a revolution this country has to thethe potential to tilt the balance of power to the for generations. brilliance of its decidedly founders and theright principles on whichYou theywon’t hear much about it innot theonly liberal-dominated mainstream mediabut and, in fact, established its unique form of government it’s a datethe with destiny the Left had every reason to believe it had managed economy that would fuel its prosperous future. to avert altogether as recently as a year ago.

Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, etc., were prominent men among their When Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died last spring just weeks after peers and could have selfishly drafted a set of laws that favored themselves hearing oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Asscociation, you and their friends - asliberal the Founding Fathers of positively most nations up to thatobservers may recall, the establishment was giddy.

Most pointagreed in history had.

Instead, they crafted a republic based on the Scalia was likely to side with the conservative majoritynotion in a case that that indivuals were bornemployees with rightsinthat government can only restrict. would give public every state the right to decide forAnd themselves to protect these rights, they envisioned a strong, unwavering Constitution whether to pay dues and/or agency fees to a labor union or lose their job. whose unequivocal language required little or no interpretation.

And for those on the left, where everything begins and ends with higher taxes bigger the prospect of because workersthey having a choice Theyand believed ingovernment, a “nation of laws, not men” knew hu- was – and is – truly terrifying. man beings are flawed, but the ideals that undergird our laws

are They saw what happened states likeare Wisconsin everlasting.

Unfortunately, laws andinstandards only as and Michigan, where workers newly empowered with rightgood as the flawed human beings who enforce them. to-work protections opted out of their unions en masse just a few years earlier, depriving unions of billions of During the two centuries that have passed since the dollars in dues money and leftist politicians of the founders completed magnificent work, election successtheir that kind of money cansucceeding buy.

generations of scoundrels have passed laws that either misapply the Constitution or ignore And they know if it can happen in itliberal strongholds altogether.

And when challenged, actions like Wisconsin and Michigan,their it can happen anywhere. are too often defended by equally corrupt judges The Left’s only hope of avoiding disaster was the and justices.

U.S. Supreme Court. But for a refreshing change, the stars the for justices appeared poised Sadly,aligned we livecorrectly in an ageand where too many to strike a devastating blowmore against the Constitution, at best, is little thanthe anunions and their once-unshakable grip and, on the obstacle to be surmounted at nation’s worst, anpolitical processes.

antiquated relic of a bygone age that doesn’t have Then Justice Scalia died, and it seemed God had intervened on their side. to bePresident obeyed because its authors couldn’t have Obama, of course, would certainly nominate a replacement whose comprehended modern challenges. allegiance, like his own, was to the liberal agenda, not the Constitution. And

even when the Republican majority in the Senate refused to consider the No group personifies thatknew disregard foronly a question of time before Hillary president’s nominee, they it was rightsClinton and liberty than the nation’s all-to-powerful government wonmore the presidency and nominated someone even worse.

employee unions, and the Freedom Foundation has made them a point Butemphasis a funny thing Sheyears. didn’t. of singular over happened. the past three If the subject matter of the articles in this magazine tends to reflect that emphasis, it’s hardly a coincidence. To the astonishment of organized labor, the media, academia, Holly-

wood and all the other liberal institutions, the voters interceded and elected aAtpresident who had promisedwe herevere wouldnot nominate the Alito the Freedom Foundation, just the someone words butinalso mold to the court. the motivations of the great men who formed this nation, and our mission

is to preserve their work in as nearly pristine a condition as possible.

And he did, too.

This magazine the latest weapon in the Freedom Foundation’s This fall, withisnew Justice Neil Gorsuch in place and the court up to full arsenal, and we hope its periodic collection of essays will enrich the strength, the justices will consider Janus v. AFSCME,both a case that revisits dialague of freedom and embolden those who endeavor to protect it.

Friedrichs and has the same potential to undermine the nation’s publicsector unions and, more importantly, the liberal agenda they’ve conspired Thanks forthis sharing ourfor first issue. to foist on country generations.

It’s a once-in-a-lifetime moment, and the Freedom Foundation isn’t about to squander it.

Stand by to make history.

Tom McCabe, CEO

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 3

TOM McCABE, CEO

FREEDOM MATTERS Volume 2, No. 2

The Janus Case represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to alter the political landscape in this country for the better.

6. Is Education a Right?

To hear the teachers’ unions and school activists tell it, you’d think so. But the Founding Fathers never intended it to be. And with good reasons.

10. Income Redistribution Isn’t Charity. It’s Theft.

Why do conservatives concede the moral high ground when it comes to confiscatory taxes?

14. Look for the Union Fable It’s bad enough SEIU uses dues to play politics. But it plays dirty, too.

16. Right to Work

When you filter out all the union misinformation, just what does it do ... and not do?

20. Laws? What Laws?

The Seattle City Council knows its income tax is illegal. But it’s counting on the Supreme Court to ignore its duty under the Constitution and legislate from the bench. Sadly, it just might.

22. Countdown to

Worker Freedom

If the Supreme Court rules correctly in Janus v. AFSCME, public-sector unions and the liberal politicians they support are both on borrowed time.

24. Five Stages of Grief

Assuming they lose in the Janus case, government union leaders are likely to react as though a loved one had died.

28. Mr. Puzder Goes to

Washington ... & Oregon.

President Trump’s first choice as Labor Secretary has an earful for public-sector unions during his visit to deliver the keynote speech at the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquets in Washington and Oregon during September.

28. Got Cash?

If the banks, retailers and governments get their way, pretty soon you won’t.

38. Action Timeline

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

Contents

3. CEO’s Message:

Freedom Matters is a publication of the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit think and action tank based in Olympia, Wash., and dedicated to promoting free markets and limited, accountable government. Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any ballot measures or the election of any elected official or candidate. Publisher: Tom McCabe; Editor: Jeff Rhodes. Phone: (360) 956-3482.

PAGE 6 n FREEDOM MATTERSERS

Is

Education a Right?

The Founding Fathers knew how important schooling was to the new nation, but they stopped short of giving it Constitutional status. And for good reason.

L

ife is important.

If someone attempts to end my life, can I force them to stop?

Certainly.

The fact that I have basic human right including the right to life justifies my use of force in the cause of this right.

Education is important, too. It is really important.

But can I force an educator to provide it for my children? Of course not.

Is education the same kind of “human right” the Founding Fathers identified in the Declaration of Independence under the heading of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Many on the left these days have all but elevated the service of education – among other commodities – to the status of basic human rights while glossing over what that designation means and what effect doing so might have on our more universally recognized rights.

To classical liberals like the Found-

ing Fathers, “rights” are ethical limitations on human behavior. Rights are attributes drawn from the very definition of what it means to be a person, and are therefore self-evident to all people. To deny their reality is to be self-contradictory.

For example, it is intrinsic to humankind to breathe. It is therefore possible to confidently assert that the right to breath is a basic human right.

In a way, rights only really exist to describe an obligation that lays on all others. Describing a right to breathe is really to describe that the alternative – suffocation – is a prohibited action without needing to reference law, theology or subjective preferences.

Other rights include movement, eating, speaking, freedom from harm, property possession and to have a voice in governance.

In all these cases, the “right” is not really possessed by the individual.

Rather, it is a prohibition on the actions

By JAMI LUND

Senior Policy Analyst

of others: Don’t imprison, don’t torture, don’t steal, don’t establish government force without consent of the governed, etc.

The strength of the moral language of “rights” is tremendous. A human right is logically undeniable, inalienable and applicable without regard to race, creed or wealth.

Ideas about foundational rights are articulated in documents ranging from the Jews, Persians, Greeks, Romans, the English Magna Carta, the Declaration of U.S. independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Moreover, rights imply a burden of proof. When one is born with a right – the freedom to go wherever he or she pleases, for example – the individual can expect to exercise it unless or until they commit a crime whose penalty includes incarceration.

But the burden of proof is on the state, not the individual, to prove why their basic human rights are being denied.

By contrast, the standard for a privilege is just the opposite. No one is born with a God-given right to, say, operate an automobile. A driver’s license is a man-made contrivance issued by the government to those who meet predetermined qualifications.

With privileges, the burden of proof is on the individual rather than the state to prove they meet the standards.

The difference is far more than just semantic and helps explain why any-

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 7

one advocating for a political objective desperately wants their cause to be thought of as a right rather than a privilege.

It’s always advantageous, after all, when your debating opponent has to do all the work while you simply occupy the moral high ground.

Those supporting any number of causes – usually on the liberal side of the equation – do it with alarming frequency these days, probably because seemingly nothing in the liberal agenda can be obtained without first confiscating the property or abridging the actual rights of someone else.

This is how they arrive at the convoluted conclusion that redistributed wealth in the form of a “basic income” could somehow be considered a human right.

Those who contort the definition of “human right” to include everything anyone might need or want in their lives may have their hearts in the right place, but that doesn’t excuse their flawed reasoning.

And there’s nothing remotely moral about taking what someone else has worked for and obtained honestly simply because you’ve decided you can put it to better use.

The whole concept of a right describes the ethical obligation that others have to not interfere with another’s endeavors.

The fact that a check does not arrive in my mailbox each month is not the same as someone trying to suffocate me.

The mandate to refrain from suffocating is obvious, but who has a mandate to toil, produce wealth and then mail me a basic income check?

No such moral obligation exists.

The whole point of basic human rights is the notion that no one may rightfully interfere PAGE 8 n FREEDOM MATTERS

with your exercise of them.

Once the suggestion is made that someone has a duty to take an action rather than just refrain from an action, the firm ground of “human rights” is left behind.

Which brings us back to the original question: Is education a basic human right?

What universal moral obligation exists by virtue of being a human regarding education?

What limitation on human behavior is placed by a “right” to education?

If we accept the existence of such a right, any person or government that prevented someone from learning would be violating someone’s fundamental human rights in the same way as if they prohibited speech or travel.

But what about the rights of the educator? Unlike breathing, speaking or worshipping as we please – which place no demands on anyone else – having a “right” to education logically implies someone must provide it, whether they want to or not.

Can individuals, under the banner of human rights, force a teacher to provide this service?

Certainly a parent has duties toward their children that are powerful moral obligations, but these are not universal and not based upon human rights.

Likewise, the society of Washington state, to cite one example, has arbitrarily created for itself a duty to provide a system of schools.

Accordingly, the people of Washington have wisely chosen to invest in an educated citizenry, but not because of some undeniable, inalienable human right.

The Washington State Constitution includes very strong language about the importance of education, and it does a

great deal to assure that this valuable service happens in our society.

It reads: “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex. The Legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools.” (Article IX) The United States Constitution codifies perhaps history’s most striking list of human rights – the Bill of Rights.

These articles all specify how the federal government – and, more recently, others – are not allowed to interfere with human freedom.

Speech, press, assembly, self-defense, due process and equal treatment are all expressed in the Bill of Rights, but none of the thinkers of the day could even dream of compelling the service of education as a basic human right.

Once we start to imagine that a right to receive education services from others is a fundamental human right, its absurdity becomes obvious.

Such a bedrock ethical mandate must necessarily include the justified use of force in defense of a human right – so would it allow us to enslave teachers to provide education?

While we’re on the subject, let’s consider the whole definition of education. If we agree organized learning is a basic human right, then whatever the individual can point to as a needed education service is immediately elevated to a binding obligation on all others to provide.

Does this obligation include pre-school, music lessons, field trips, college, specialty train-

ing, extracurricular activities, vocational education and anything else the potential learner (or his or her attorney) concludes is needed?

And who’s at fault if it’s not provided?

To trample basic human rights is to commit the most obvious and grave of crimes.

If a person does not receive an education, who is the guilty party and should face consequences?

Arguably every single human in the society played some role in neglecting this obligation. Are they all to be punished in some way?

Does this human rights violation include those who provide a poor quality education?

These and a host of other imbecilities surrounding a flawed understanding of human rights explain why neither the U.S. Constitution nor the most progressive state constitutions in the nation go so far as to suggest the service of education is a human right.

Which isn’t to suggest education isn’t important, or that parents don’t have a familial duty to assure their minor children obtain one.

But everything worth having isn’t a right.

Society values its school system and has facilitated the taxes and systems of providing a basic education. Teachers and charities all take extraordinary steps to equip children with the education that yields so many important benefits.

But education services are not a basic human right, and it does no disservice to education or those who provide them to acknowledge that such mischaracterizations do little good and have the potential to do great injury to our more familiar, legitimate human rights.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 9

Income redistribution isn’t charity. It’s

THEFt

By JEFF RHODES * Managing Editor

PAGE 10 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Why don’t conservatives realize they hold the moral high ground when it comes to confiscatory taxes?

M

ake no mistake about it, all the rational, practical arguments are on the side of those who oppose using the blunt instrument of government to redistribute income.

Which, ironically, could be why fiscal conservatives routinely win debates but lose elections over this hot-button issue.

In a debate forum, where facts and evidence presumably trump emotion, it’s child’s play to prove income redistribution couldn’t possibly work and never has.

For starters, the so-called “rich” from whom wealth is to be confiscated and handed over to the “poor” almost certainly didn’t get that way by being overly generous with the IRS, and they’re not likely to moder-

ate those impulses just because of a change in the tax laws.

Activists for what they consider “social justice” make the false assumption that all one has to do is pass a tax that targets the wealthy and the revenue will start pouring in.

Rather than submitting meekly to the shearing, however, clever sheep know how to shelter their income in different investments and, if necessary, move it offshore where it can’t be taxed – or invested to help grow the economy.

But even if the rich could be forced to pay confiscatory taxes, income redistribution schemes would still be psychologically counterintuitive – which is a fancy way of saying no one ever works as hard or as well for someone else as they do when they reap the benefits of that labor themselves.

Call it greedy and self-centered if you like, but if Communist icon Karl Marx’s ideal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” wasn’t a canard, you’d think at least one society in world history would have made it work by now.

But none has, and with good reason.

Absent the incentive of wealth and personal reward, why would anyone in their right mind risk their savings (assuming the concept still existed) and put forth the effort required to create a successful commercial enterprise? Indeed, why work at all when those who don’t are entitled to sponge off the labors of their more industrious neighbors?

Then, too, there’s the track record failure redistribution schemes

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 11

Abraham Lincoln

have racked up. It makes no difplayed by the rules and prospered ference whether you date the birth honestly rather than a politician of the welfare state to the 1960s, or bureaucrat playing God with with LBJ’s “Great Society” or someone else’s wealth – and the FDR’s “New Deal” in the raking off a hefty handling 1930s. The United States fee for the privilege. still has just as much During his videotaped poverty as it ever had – encounter with “Joe probably more. the Plumber” during The liberals’ anthe 2008 presidential swer? Redistribute campaign, Barack even more, naturally.

Obama famously Logically, it reasoned: makes no sense – “If the econthat is, until you omy’s good for realize that five folks from the of the nation’s bottom up, it’s 10 most affluent going be good ZIP codes can be for everybody. found in the subIf you’ve got a urbs of Washingplumbing busiton, D.C. ness, you’re “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

All that wealth gonna be better You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the being siphoned off if you’ve got strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by away from those at a whole bunch of the top of the scale customers who can discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner may not be doing afford to hire you, up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot much to help those and right now evfurther the brotherhood of man by inciting at the bottom, but it’s erybody’s so pinched class hatred. You cannot build character done a spectacular job that business is bad for and courage by taking away people’s of enriching the rediseverybody, and I think tributors themselves. when you spread the initiative and independence. You cannot All of which begs the wealth around, it’s good help people permanently by doing question: With all the empirifor everybody.” for them, what they could cal evidence fiscal conservatives In a sane world – or at least and should do for can marshal in opposition to inone where more voters underthemselves.” come redistribution, why hasn’t the stood basic economics – such sophconcept been thoroughly discredited istry would have ended his camby now? paign on the spot. But alas, Obama Simple. Because human beings middle that can lean either way and served two terms and turned the don’t always think with their heads just wants to do the right thing.

Democratic presidential field in 2016 rather than their hearts, facts may And that’s a huge problem for over to a pair of candidates at least not necessarily be enough. the right, because the most wellas oblivious to market forces and It’s enough for conservatives, of reasoned, exhaustively sourced willing to exploit the envy and/or course. Being cursed with the need argument in the world is going to guilt of the liberal base as he was. to examine issues critically and insist fall flat if it sounds cruel. And not But for sheer misrepresentation on actual results rather than settling helping those who need it is cruel – of how social justice actually works, for good intentions is a hallmark of or at least we’ve been conditioned to it’s hard to underestimate the damthose on the right, just as an indifbelieve it is, which is just as bad. age done when no less an authority ference to evidence and an infinite The point is, those advocating for on virtue than the pope signs off on capacity to demand what should fiscal responsibility needn’t concede government-sponsored theft under be rather than what actually can be that their position necessarily means the guise of charity. characterizes the liberal psyche. the rich will remain rich while the Speaking to the United Nations The catch is, everyone in the poor remain poor. It simply means secretary general and other internaworld doesn’t identify as liberal or the choice as to how much will be tional leaders in 2014, Pope Francis conservative. At least a third (and given and to whom will be made referenced a “legitimate redistribuprobably more) fall into the mushy by the person who worked hard, tion of economic benefits by the PAGE 12 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Benjamin Franklin

state, as well as indispensable cooptions cannot peacefully coexist. eration between the private sector Maybe in the heaven where Dolan and civil society.” and the pope will one day reside, But as reluctant as one may but not in the earth we all curbe to contradict the pontiff rently inhabit. on the content of the Bible, “It is part of human nawhen it comes to interture to work and produce,” pretation, it’s a pretty Dolan writes, “and everysafe bet that, “Thou one has the natural right shalt not steal” almost to economic initiative certainly trumps and to enjoy the fruits whatever verse he’s of their labors. But quoting from. abundance is for the And in an benefit of all people.” entirely moralisAgain, make up tic sense, takyour mind. Charing money and ity is a wonderful property from thing. But it’s theft, people who’ve not charity, when rightfully earned what I work for it and don’t want and earn is taken to give it to you from me by force if “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in is the textbook I choose not to give opinion of the means. I think the best way of definition of theft it willingly. doing good to the poor, is not making them easy – even when the Dolan — and in poverty, but leading or driving them out of state sanctions it. by extension, the One needn’t pope — either fail to it. In my youth I travelled much, and I question the good comprehend this fine observed in different countries, that the more intentions of the point of law or would public provisions were made for the poor, the pope – or, for that matprefer to cloak it in less they provided for themselves, and ter, anyone concerned blissful ignorance. of course became poorer. And, on the with alleviating poverty By that logic, the IRS is and suffering in the world. no different than a Salvation contrary, the less was done for And if his solution had been Army bell-ringer, notwiththem, the more they did for urging people to be more charistanding the fact that the former themselves, and became table, that would be one thing. is backed up by a real army, carryricher.”

But it isn’t charity when the goving guns, not tambourines. ernment takes what belongs to me at With all due respect to His Holithe point of a gun. ness and the church’s fixer in New Perhaps not surprisingly, an however, Dolan had also stated that York, there’s nothing amoral about op-ed written by Cardinal Timothy the church “…certainly disapproves of economic freedom. And market Dolan, archbishop of New York, … economic amorality, which leaves forces, far from being impersonal, subsequently appeared in the Wall people at the mercy of impersonal are the essence of humanity because Street Journal. Headlined, “The market forces, where they have no they are the product of free choices Pope’s Case for Virtuous Capitalchoice but to sink, swim or be left with made by millions of individuals, not ism,” the piece offered a rationale as the scraps that fall from the table.” agenda-driven bureaucrats. conflicted as its economic underpinSo which is it? Is economic freeThen again, anyone who could nings were flawed. dom moral or isn’t it? coin a term like “virtuous capitalDolan insisted the pope wasn’t Dolan seems to be advocating for ism” without realizing it’s as reduncalling for state-sponsored redistria system under which people are dant as “compassionate conservativbution, noting “The church has conmore or less free to work hard and ism” probably isn’t an appropriate sistently rejected coercive systems of generate wealth, while a higher auspokesman for either. socialism and collectivism because thority (Government? The church?)

With all due respect, it’s impossible they violate inherent human rights is also free to confiscate as much as to “legitimately redistribute” what beto economic freedom and private it deems necessary for the sake of longs to someone else, and the impriproperty.” those it deems needy. matur of the neither the government Just a few paragraphs earlier, Unfortunately, those two condinor the church changes that fact.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 13

PAGE 14 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Look for the

e l b a f union

It’s bad enough SEIU uses confiscated dues money to play politics, but it also has a habit of playing dirty.

S

ervice Employees International Union – the nation’s largest and most politically active government employee union – is literally everywhere, doing whatever it takes to get more money for itself, whether that means stealing members’ dues or forging signatures to either kill or support ballot measures at the whim of its leaders.

SEIU members frequently call the Freedom Foundation offices to report alleged forgery on the part of the union, but they’re reluctant or afraid to challenge it with a criminal or civil case.

To cite just a few of the more egregious examples: • During the summer of 2010 in Washington state, SEIU 775 opted not to hire a professional signature-gathering company to collect petitions in support of income tax measure I-1098.

Instead, it simply recruited union members to do the grunt work.

However, it became obvious by early 2011 the petitions contained numerous signatures forged by “former SEIU negotiator Claudia McKinney, (who) pleaded guilty Feb. 16 , 2011, to the felony in King County Superior Court.”

McKinney forged at least 349 signatures, making her case the worst signature fraud in state history.

• In California, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan tried to advocate for a pension initiative on the May 2012 ballot. The initiative would both “switch new city employees into a 401(k)-style plan…

By RACHEL ALEXANIAN Policy Intern

(and) require current employees to pay more toward their pensions.”

Opposing Riordan’s measure, SEIU 721 sent out more than 100 organizers to get signatures on a petition to keep the initiative off the ballot.

Organizer Paul Kim, in accordance with this effort, sent an email brazenly stating: “We need Union members hitting the streets signing Riordan’s petition with fake names/addresses and gathering retraction signatures from LA residents on our own petition. We need people power starting this Saturday.”

SEIU acknowledged Kim’s email and claimed he was disciplined (yet refused to provide any details of such discipline). At the same time, a union executive dismissed the email as a nonissue because of the danger he claimed Riordan’s initiative posed to the middle-class.

It is, of course, illegal to put fake signatures on a ballot petition. Yet SEIU felt so threatened by Riordan’s initiative that it was willing to engage in illegal activity just to keep the initiative off the ballot.

• Similar to Washington, Oregon and California, Minnesota home healthcare workers were forced as a condition of employment to be in a union. Patricia Johansen, a Minnesota personal-care assistant, says her signature was forged on a union card that authorized union dues to be taken from her paychecks.

When she noticed union dues were

suddenly being deducted, she contacted SEIU and told its representatives she never joined the union. They responded by telling her they had her signature. Johansen asked to see it.

The union sent Johansen a copy of what they claimed she had signed. It was “an SEIU organizing card dated May 3, 2014, with what appears to be her signature at the bottom.”

SEIU had visited Johansen in 2014 to talk to her about the union election, but Johansen told them she wasn’t interested. It is hard to see how she could have possibly signed the organizing card, yet, her “signature” was seen on the card. The most obvious problem is that Johansen is left-handed and writes in cursive.

The signature on the card “was filled out in crude block letters and the signature was clumsy.”

Although SEIU eventually returned her dues, a union executive maintained that its investigation into the matter was “inconclusive.”

While Johansen’s dues were refunded, the fact remains that someone at SEIU clearly forged her signature in order to get more money so that SEIU could keep funding illegal activities that benefit them alone.

SEIU doesn’t bat an eye about forging signatures or committing voter fraud if that’s what it takes to keep it in power. Again, these are not isolated cases, nor are the offenses limited to one state.

SEIU leaves a trail of broken rules and stolen elections wherever it goes, and there’s no reason to believe it’s going to stop any time soon.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 15

PAGE 16 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Right Work to

When you filter out all the union scare tactics, what is it ... and more importantly, what isn’t it?

I

f you asked a room full of government union lobbyists what a right-to-work law does, they’d probably tell you at least one of the following: “It destroys unions.”

“It lowers wages.”

“It raises infant mortality.”

Or, because the liberal’s imagination can only stretch so far: “It’s racist.”

But for all the fearmongering rhetoric spewed out by union officials about the cataclysmic effects of right-towork, seldom do they explain what right-to-work laws actually do. Perhaps it’s because they know they have a difficult position to defend.

Right-to-work is wildly popular with Americans; about 70 percent support the basic idea when polled.

Rather than take a clearly unpopular position, then, union officials prefer to muddy the waters around the issue itself.

Let’s cut through the mud and get to the truth of the matter.

What non-right-to-work does.

Before we examine what right-to-work laws do, consider what happens in a non-right-to-work scenario:

By BEN STRAKA Policy Analyst

Johnny is a public schoolteacher. He accepts a teaching job in a non-right-to-work state, like Oregon or Washington.

Johnny is a political conservative. Unfortunately, his values aren’t shared by his union, which represents him automatically and existed long before he got hired. Even though Johnny chooses not to be a union member, the union takes fees from Johnny’s paycheck each month and spends it on causes Johnny doesn’t support.

Johnny doesn’t like the union, doesn’t feel it represents his best interests and believes he shouldn’t be forced to financially contribute to a private group against his will.

He informs the union that he won’t pay their fees anymore.

Johnny is fired.

Unlike the above scenario in which poor Johnny got canned, right-to-work laws protect employees from losing their jobs for refusing to pay union fees.

The rationale is simple. The First Amendment of

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 17

the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to free speech and association, which is violated when they are forced to subsidize a labor union – or any private organization – against their will.

Thus, employees should be able to choose for themselves whether to pay union dues or fees.

Right-to-work does just that, and nothing more.

Speaking of which, it’s important to realize that nothing about right-to-work prevents an employee from joining a union and paying membership dues voluntarily.

In fact, many Americans would probably be confused at the alternative that statement suggests. If voluntary membership isn’t the standard, then what is?

Not quite mandatory membership, but something very close – almost indistinguishable, in fact.

While no American can legally be forced to become a formal union member or pay formal union membership dues, states without right-to-work protections nonetheless allow unions to charge “nonmember fees” as a condition of employment. In most cases, the default fee for nonmembers is the exact same amount as full membership dues – or close enough to make opting out not with the trouble.

While protecting an employee’s associational freedom is important in any context, the First Amendment violations of compulsory unionism become especially evident in the public sector. There, collective bargaining efforts with the government – often between unions and the very politicians they helped elect – are inherently political because they directly affect the size and cost of government services.

Without right-to-work protections, employees in unionized workplaces find themselves compelled to support political speech against their will.

To date, 28 states have put an end this injustice by enacting right-to-work legislation prohibiting nonmember union fees. Although the decision about whether to make to union payment voluntary is currently up to state legislatures, the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME could soon bring right-to-work protections to public employees nationwide.

What right-to-work doesn’t do.

Union resistance to right-to-work is the derivative of two factors. First, union leaders have always understood that employee free choice threatens the old model of compulsory unionism. Second, most of them are unwilling – or unable – to accept anything different than that model.

Regrettably, this means the vast majority of union leaders staunchly oppose giving employees a choice about whether to pay dues. Rather than framing their opposition in terms of the First Amendment, though, they prefer to lead the conversation in different, fundamentally misleading directions.

Union rhetoric against right-to-work is sure to take center stage in the mainstream media as a decision in Janus v. AFSCME draws nearer. This makes it all the more important for members of the public to understand PAGE 18 n FREEDOM MATTERS

what they’re listening to. The following are a few of the most common talking points against right-to-work.

1. Right-to-work destroys unions’ ability to collectively bargain.

This is perhaps the most generic, but also the most common, union lie about right-to-work laws. With inadequate reasons to oppose right-to-work from a policy perspective, union leaders often characterize it as part of a vast corporate conspiracy to eliminate workers’ rights to bargain collectively.

As with most conspiracy theories, however, the public should be rightly skeptical.

Case in point – the above statement quite literally suggests that right-to-work laws eliminate unions’ collective bargaining rights. Is this true?

Not in the least. Right-to-work does not affect collective bargaining in any way. It simply gives employees the freedom to choose whether to pay dues.

Unions arrive at this most common argument by performing some impressive mental gymnastics. Because right-to-work allows employees to choose whether to pay union dues, they reason, it will inevitably lead to decreased union revenue.

That, in turn, will weaken unions’ collective bargaining power, thus “destroying” unions.

However, Big Labor essentially concedes that its wounds will be self-inflicted on this point. Although employees covered by right-to-work can still choose to pay dues voluntarily, most union leaders know they’ve built

their organizations on a compulsory model that, unlike businesses in the private sector, doesn’t rely on providing quality service to its members.

If workers decline to purchase their services when finally given a choice, unions have nobody to blame but themselves.

The reality is that effective unions will thrive, while ineffective ones will be rejected. Indeed, this is already evident in right-to-work states, where some unions have retained strong membership.

The lie that right-to-work “destroys” collective bargaining, therefore, is really a plea for survival from unaccountable union leaders who know they’ve dug their own grave.

Far from having a negative impact on collective bargaining, right-to-work forces unions to be more accountable to their members to earn their support.

2. Right-to-work states have lower wages and higher rates of poverty.

Although technically two separate points, unions often point to wages and poverty together as examples of the evils of right-to-work. Unions make this argument by referencing statistics showing that, in general, wages are lower in right-to-work states than in non-right-towork states, while poverty rates are higher.

For anybody expecting causal proof, however, don’t bother.

The truth is, correlation is not causation. In making this argument, unions most commonly simply compare average wages and poverty rates – which are the result of various factors, including cost-of-living differences – between states.

Even sophisticated studies attempting to show a cause-and-effect relationship have been called into question for failure to fully account for factors such as cost of living.

There is also evidence – although it remains correlative – that suggests the opposite. When specifically accounting for state-to-state differences like cost of living, data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015 “Supplemental Poverty Measure” showed virtually no difference in poverty rates between right-to-work states and nonright-to-work states.

In the end, it’s important to realize that unions rely on ignoring one of the most fundamental laws of statistics to make their wage-and-poverty argument. After all, shark attacks go up along with increased ice cream consumption, too. But we all know there’s probably a more common geographical and seasonal reason for that.

3. Infant mortality rates are higher in right-to-work states.

Intended to scare even the most ardent legislators into opposing evil right-to-work laws, the “infant mortality” talking point takes correlative data to the next level.

Like poverty and wages, many factors – if not more factors – go into determining the infant mortality rate in

a state. Some union leaders would have you believe that the two are directly linked; in other words, that allowing employees to decline paying union dues poses a severe threat to babies’ lives.

But unless the unions are threatening the babies themselves, it’s hard to see how the two are connected.

4. Right-to-work allows employees to benefit from the union’s collective bargaining efforts without paying for the cost.

Although this argument is ultimately as untenable as the rest, it does land the closest to actually touching on the policy effects of right-to-work.

The “free rider” defense holds that because unions have an obligation to represent all employees in a bargaining unit, they must represent even nonmembers who decide to not pay dues. Thus, those employees are unjustly enjoying the benefits of a union contract without contributing to the cost.

It is true that unions are obligated to represent nonmembers. What they don’t tell you, of course, is that this obligation is self-imposed.

Many nonmembers who object to paying compulsory dues also object to being forced to accept the union’s representation. Yet even in right-to-work states, unions would rather allow “free riders” than relinquish their monopoly on workplace representation – which they could almost certainly do if they tried.

In fact, unions’ monopoly on workplace representation is one of the ways they attempt to justify forcing all employees to pay dues or fees. Often this is characterized as preserving “labor peace” – that is, preventing strikes and work stoppages.

However, not only does the data fail to show that compulsory unionism leads to fewer strikes and work stoppages, but it’s also a gross perversion of American principles to place preserving “labor peace” as a higher priority than protecting employees’ First Amendment rights.

For all the union talk about destroying the working class and subjecting infants to the murderous free-riding effects of right-to-work laws, the reality is that these laws really just do one thing: allow employees to choose whether to pay union dues or fees.

Freedom of association is an important principle embodied in the First Amendment that, if everything goes as expected, the U.S. Supreme Court will vote to protect in Janus v. AFCSME. Compulsory unionism remains one of the last remaining clear violations of this freedom, and unfortunately, Big Labor’s staunch opposition to right-towork shows that it intends to keep it that way.

But Americans won’t be fooled. The more we can understand and defend the principles from which freedom is derived, the more we can ensure that opportunity and individual liberty flourishes in our country.

And right-to-work is an important stepping stone to getting there.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 19

Laws? What Laws?

Kshama Sawant and Seattle’s City Council know their new income tax on the wealthy is illegal. That’s the whole point.

T

he new tax on “high-income” residents imposed last month by the Seattle City Council is simply the latest thrust in the progressive crusade Councilwoman Kshama Sawant and her fellow leftists are waging against that city’s economic prosperity and freedom.

This is, perhaps, the country’s first tax solely designed to redistribute wealth. The council is determined to remediate “income inequality,”

PAGE 20 n FREEDOM MATTERS

By DAVID DEWHIRST Chief Litigation Counsel

and its members think this new tax is a step toward that goal.

The problem is, the tax is illegal.

Income taxes that impose different rates violate the Uniformity Clause of the State Constitution. State courts have acknowledged that for nearly 100 years. It’s also a tax on net income, which state law prohibits cities from assessing. For that matter,

the state has not provided the necessary authority to Washington cities to asses any income taxes. And these are only a few of the reasons Seattle’s new tax is illegal.

What’s even more serious is that the council knows its actions are illegal. In a recent video interview, Sawant admitted as much: “We anticipate – our movement anticipates – that Republicans, the right-wing, and the billionaire cause

– wealthy people – are likely to launch a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court. But we want to have that fight. I mean, if you look at, throughout history, if you look at how civil rights were passed, how abortion rights were obtained, and more recently how marriage equality was achieved, it was not the Supreme Court leading the way.

It was activists on the ground.

Working people, young people building grassroots movements, pushing aside the status quo of carpet politics, winning victory after victory and forcing supreme courts to change the law, to overturn unjust laws. That’s the strategy that our movement is using, and that is why it’s really important that we have been able to pass this historic law in Seattle.”

what it perceives to be the public interest that it is most likely to sidestep constitutional safeguards or to denigrate constitutional liberties.”

City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wn.2d 260, 281 (1994).

Politicians like Sawant are able to engage in obviously illegal behavior because many citizens have forgotten that they must be vigilant citizens.

Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” and his words were never more true. Government is necessary to protect many of our liberties, and yet government poses an ever-present threat to those liberties.

Article I, Section 32 echoes this principle: “A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the The fate of Seattle’s model income tax on the wealthy could ultimately come down to whether the Washington There you have it. Seattle’s security of individual right State Supreme Court justices believe their allegiance “historic law” is lawless, and the perpetuity of free should be to the law or their own liberal ideology.

Sawant and her acolytes know government.” this, and so they plan to poIn 1943, a Washington liticize the issue so aggressively that But a non-uniform tax would force Supreme Court Justice was opining the courts will “change the law” and some citizens to bear a disproportionon this constitutional provision and approve the tax. ate share of the tax burden. Our state’s remarked: There’s a lot of other barely coherframers found this inequity so unacent nonsense in her statement, but ceptable they crafted a constitutional “The founding fathers were aware let’s follow this thread: Sawant has no prohibition on non-uniform taxes. In of the ills to which a republican form of understanding or respect for the rule Washington, then, the fundamental government is peculiarly heir. They were of law. law guarantees legal equality for mindful of the fact that a free people too Elected officials took an action they every taxpayer and an equal and civic soon forget the fathers’ sacrifices which knew to be illegal and unconstitution- distribution of the tax burden. made the heritage of liberty possible and al. And they expect to manipulate the But the council doesn’t care, that, through the years as they prosper, courts into changing their precedent because it believes income inequality the people grow more indifferent to and and the will of the people, expressed is an apex problem that must be adheedless of the fundamental principles of in the Constitution. dressed, even if that means old legal government and fall an easy prey to the The Freedom Foundation – not the norms must be scuttled in the process. slow and insidious encroachment from “Republicans or billionaires” – is fightThat’s why this tax should garner within upon natural and constitutional ing thi tax because it institutionalizes mass opposition from people of all rights… State v. McCollum, 17 Wn.2d legal inequality. ideologies and political persuasions.

85, 95, (1943).

Yes, the very “law” Sawant wants Fundamental values the people have to change is one that enshrines equaldeclared paramount should not be Against these backdrops, Seattle’s ity under the law. sacrificed to political currents of the new tax ordinance is truly chilling.

According to the people of Washmoment.

Hopefully this episode, and the ington, non-uniform taxes violate that Indeed, constitutional provisions Freedom Foundation’s legal chalequality. exist for this very reason. lenge to it, will stir Washingtonians Under a uniform tax, be it a sales In yet another case in which Seattle to reclaim their inherent power, to retax, a property tax or even an income attempted to violate constitutional examine the noble principles that bind tax, those with higher income will rights, the Washington Supreme us together, and to re-master their always pay more than their fellow Court said this: “(I)t is often when government. citizens who earn lower income. government is most eagerly pursuing FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 21

COUNTDOWN to

worker

freedom PAGE 22 n FREEDOM MATTERS

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear Janus, the clock is now ticking on mandatory union dues and fees.

S

By MAXFORD NELSEN Labor Policy Director

econd chances don’t come often enough, and third chances are even rarer.

Thankfully, with its decision to grant certiorari to Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court has given public employees a third shot at making the case that state laws requiring government workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment are unconstitutional.

While there is no guarantee the court will rule in favor of the plaintiff, Illinois state employee Mark Janus, most court prognosticators seem to think it likely.

If it ultimately does so, the court will have finally undone an injustice that stretches back nearly five decades.

Public employees were first granted the ability to collectively bargain with a government entity when New York Mayor Robert Wagner extended collective bargaining rights to city employees by executive order in 1958. A year later, Wisconsin became the first state to formally provide for collective bargaining in the public-sector.

By 1962, an executive order by President John F. Kennedy had established collective bargaining for federal employees.

In the decades since, most states have authorized collective bargaining for some or all public workers.

Though Kennedy’s executive order did not allow unions to require federal employees to pay union dues, the collective bargaining laws adopted by many — generally more progressive — states did.

But Americans instinctively bristle at monopolies, and no one likes to be forced to pay for something they don’t want. As unions flexed their new-found muscle and be-

came increasingly politically active, some public employees resented being forced to financially support organizations they opposed.

In 1977, a case brought by a group of Michigan teachers led by D. Louis Abood made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs contended that a Michigan statute forcing teachers who refused to join the union to nonetheless pay an “agency fee” equal to full dues violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to subsidize union speech and activities they disagreed with.

And the court agreed, but instead of banning the practice altogether, the justices watered down the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ruling with an impossible compromise that set the stage for a decades-long injustice affecting millions of government workers.

Rather than simply recognizing the compelled payments as compelled speech, the court attempted to draw a line between a union’s political and representational activities.

While the justices acknowledged that public employees could not be forced to subsidize explicitly political activity by their union (such as campaign contributions), they could be constitutionally required to pay for the union’s “chargeable” activity for representational purposes.

From the beginning, the court recognized that administering such an arrangement carried with it certain practical “difficulties.” For example, how would the fee unions charge objectors be calculated? And by whom? What if there is a dispute over the calculation of the fee?

A number of these questions made their way before the Supreme Court nine years later in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. Public school teacher Annie Lee Hudson did not wish to financially support her union and objected to the way her agency fee — 95 percent of full dues — was calculated by the union.

In its 1986 decision, the court established certain “procedural safeguards” for the rights of objecting nonmembers.

Namely, the court determined that, “…the constitutional requirements for the Union’s collection of agency fees include an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decision-maker, and an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challenges are pending.”

After Hudson, the court took a 20-year hiatus from addressing questions regarding the rights of union-represented public employees.

That changed when Davenport v. Washington Education Association, a case brought by the Freedom Foundation and public school teacher Gary Davenport, reached the court in 2006.

In its decision, the court upheld a state law requiring unions to first obtain permission from nonmembers before spending their agency fees on political activity.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 23

ABOOD v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION (1977)

MARQUEZ v. SCREEN ACTORS GUILD (1998)

Established that public employees’ dues cannot be used for political purposes without their permission but allowed unions to continue charging mandatory “agency fees,” allegedly to cover the unions’ collective bargaining and administrative costs.

The court declared that, if a union negotiates a comcpulsory unionism provision, it must notify workers that they may satisfy its requirement merely by paying fees to support the union’s “representational activities” in collective bargaining and contract administration without actually becoming members.

CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION v. HUDSON (1986)

The court required that employees be provided with information supporting the union’s financial breakdown of forced dues; that those figures be verified by independent audit; and that employees have an opportunity for a prompt, impartial review of the union’s forced-dues calculations.

In so doing, the court affirmed the ability of states to “eliminate agency fees entirely” because “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmemberemployees.”

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia took great pains to emphasize the extraordinary privilege state law extended to unions by allowing them to require any payment from public employees at all.

Davenport marked a significant turning point in the court’s jurisprudence, and set it off a series of cases in which the court began to move away from its earlier holding in Abood.

In 2012, a class-action lawsuit against SEIU Local 1000 brought on behalf of 28,000 nonmember state employees in California contended that the union’s decision to levy a “special assessment” on nonmembers for the purpose of raising funds for a series of political campaigns violated the employees’ First Amendment rights.

While the case itself was fairly technical, the court used Knox v. SEIU as an opportunity to effectively invite a more direct challenge to agency fee requirements.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito condemned “…the aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers” as “indefensible.”

Along the way, he acknowledged that “…compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights,’” that allowing such fees “represents something of an anomaly” in the court’s jurisprudence, and that “authorizing a union to collect fees from nonmembers… approach(es), if (it) does not cross, the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate.”

Nonetheless, the question before the court did not squarely address the constitutionality of agency fees and the scheme remained tentatively intact.

The next big blow for government unions came just two years later when the court heard Harris v. Quinn — Harris being plaintiff Pamela Harris, a Medicaid-subsidized home caregiver for her disabled adult son, and “Quinn” referring to Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn — in 2014.

PAGE 24 n FREEDOM MATTERS

DAVENPORT v. WASHINGTON EDUC

The court unanimously ruled that have no constitutional right to co nonmembers, a state may require affirmative consent before spend employees’ forced fees on politic decision also reiterated that, as t decided in 1949, right-to-work la

Janus

Although caregivers like Harris were placed under state collective bargaining laws for the purpose of unionization, they are considered independent contractors, rather than state employees, for most other legal purposes. Still, the state and union (again SEIU) had required caregivers to pay union dues or agency fees as a condition of participating in the state’s Medicaid homecare programs.

While many unions expected the court to overturn Abood and put an end to agency fees altogether, the court only ruled that agency fee requirements were unconstitutional for “partial-public employees” like Harris.

However, using terms like “questionable,” “troubling,” and “seriously” in error, Justice Alito, again writing for the majority, spent a full 12 pages of his opinion laying out a case against Abood as stinging as it was comprehensive.

Critically, the majority opinion acknowledged that, “In the public sector, core issues such as wages, pensions, and benefits are important political issues.” If even “representational” union work in the public sector is fundamentally political, how can public employees be forced to pay for it without violating their First Amendment rights?

A group of California public school teachers asked that very question of the Supreme Court in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association in 2016. After the case was argued in January, the consensus among most observers was that the court was poised to give the plaintiffs a 5-4 win and strike down agency fee requirements for public employees once and for all. Government unions howled in protest, denouncing the case as an attack on the middle class by the wealthy.

The head of the California Teachers Association went so far as to blast lead plaintiff and elementary school teacher Rebecca Friedrichs as the “spawn of Satan” for daring to depart from union orthodoxy.

KNOX v. SEIU 1000 (2012)

The court declared that, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide (a notice of the purpose of the assessment or increase) and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”

CATION ASSN. (2007)

t, because unions ollect fees from e unions to obtain ding nonmember public cal activities. The court’s the court had originally aws are constitutional.

FRIEDRICHS v. CAL TEACHERS ASSN. (2016)

Rebecca Friedrichs, a teacher, challenges the right of the union to force her to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment. With the court poised to rule in her favor, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly dies, leaving the court deadlocked and preserving - temporarily - the 9th Circuit’s ruling in favor

HARRIS v. QUINN (2014)

Declared that, although paid by taxpayers, home-based healthcare and childcare providers are not full-fledged state employees and cannot be forced to pay union dues or agency fees.

Timeline

The sudden death of Justice Scalia at a hunting ranch in Texas during February, however, upset everything.

In June, the court issued a one-sentence statement noting that the justices were deadlocked 4-4. As a result, the 9th Circuit’s decision in the union’s favor, based on Abood, remained the final word.

Or so it seemed.

What happened next turned out to be as extraordinary as Justice Scalia’s sudden passing. First, Senate Republicans made it clear they would refuse to confirm any Supreme Court nominee until after the upcoming presidential election, thus blocking Merrick Garland, President Obama’s choice to succeed Scalia.

Of course, had Hillary Clinton won the election — which, until election night, seemed likely — the Senate would have had to ultimately confirm her nominee to replace Scalia with someone virtually certain to put the unions’ interests above workers’ constitutional rights.

Instead, Donald Trump pulled off an improbable upset victory and, thankfully, honored his campaign pledge to appoint an originalist justice in Scalia’s mold.

Polls indicated that the empty Supreme Court seat was the primary motivation for many GOP voters and may have helped tip the scales in Trump’s favor.

By April 2017, Justice Neil Gorsuch, by all accounts a staunch conservative jurist, was confirmed. And on Sept.

28 — 40 years after Abood — a fully staffed Supreme Court agreed to hear Janus v. AFSCME, another head-on challenge to agency fee requirements.

While Friedrichs proved nothing is ever certain, the court is again expected to rule 5-4 for the plaintiff though, given the weakness of the unions’ arguments, Janus deserves a commanding victory.

Since Abood, the Supreme Court recognized that, “To compel employees financially to support their collective-

JANUS v. AFSCME (2017) Soon after Donald Trump’s unexpected (to the unions) election as president, he nominates Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s vacant seat on the court and, anticipating he will vote with the conservative majority, a case nearly identical to Friedrichs is quickly brought forward and will be heard during the 2017-18 term.

bargaining representative has an impact upon their First Amendment interests” and may “interfere in some way with an employee’s freedom to associate for the advancement of ideas, or to refrain from doing so, as he sees fit.”

While unions argue that public employees must be forced to pay agency fees to prevent them from “free riding” and receiving union services for which they do not pay, the court observed in Knox that, “Such free-rider arguments… are generally insufficient to overcome First Amend¬ment objections” and that the practice had been historically justified by “the government interest in labor peace.”

In Friedrichs, the union argued that the ability to force employees to pay agency fees was needed to “facilitate the effectiveness of unions in maintaining stable labor relations” while the state of California contended that allowing public employees to choose whether to financially support a union would “(foster) rancor and resentment in the workplace and directly (undercut) the interests of the government employer.”

This is more of an empirical argument than a legal one, though, and the evidence shows that states forcing public employees to pay union dues or fees are actually far more likely to experience strikes and labor unrest than right-towork states where employees may choose for themselves whether to financially support a union.

A Freedom Foundation analysis of two federal databases of strikes and work stoppages — one from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and one from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) — finds a strong correlation between a state’s right-to-work status and the degree of labor unrest.

In short, the union’s legal justification for mandatory agency fees rests entirely on an empirical fiction.

If the court sees through the unions’ desperate arguments and rules for the plaintiff, it will deliver a muchneeded win to millions of public employees around the country stuck in politically aggressive unions that, for too long, have been able to take them for granted.

Of course, such a decision is 40 years overdue.

But perhaps the third time will be a charm.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 25

PAGE 26 n FREEDOM MATTERS

five stages of

M

GRIEF

uch to the relief of labor reformers and freedom lovers of every stripe, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on Sept. 28 it will hear Janus v.

AFSCME, the latest challenge to the widespread practice of requiring public employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.

But even if the justices rule as they should in Janus, don’t expect the unions to wake up the morning after and start complying with the law. As they’ve demonstrated in the aftermath of Harris v. Quinn, the 2014 precedent that made dues and fees optional for home-based healthcare and childcare providers, it’s one thing for workers to have a right on paper to opt out, but it’s something else altogether to make the unions respect it.

After all, the law only says workers must be able to opt out; nothing says it has to be easy.

Unions have an enormous financial stake in this case, of course, as do the left-leaning politicians the unions help elect with the understanding they’ll pass legislation that protects the whole dirty scheme.

And both will fight tooth and nail to protect it.

According to the U.S. Department of

Expect union bosses to react to the Janus ruling as they would to a loved one’s death

By RAIMEE SLUDER Policy Analyst

Labor, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) – just one of the many unions potentially affected by the Janus ruling, rakes in more than $182 million in employee dues a year.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU), at the national level, does even better, collecting about $277 million.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) collected $170 million in dues last year, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) collects about $192 million in dues in 2016.

Lastly, the National Education Association (NEA) confiscates a whopping $367 million a year.

And keep in mind this is only the national level for each union. The locals collect even more.

All told, the public sector is a multibillion-dollar gold mine for organized labor

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 27

leaders, and no one should expect them to hand it over just because of a little thing like the law.

The Freedom Foundation knows this better than anyone. Within days of the Harris ruling, records obtained through Freedom of Information requests revealed leaders from SEIU – which represents the healthcare and childcare workers in Washington state – were huddling with the governor and his staff form a joint plan of attack.

As they did then, the unions will react to Janus the loss of their presumed right to plunder public employees’ paychecks with impunity just as you or I would react to the loss of a loved one – by grieving.

Accordingly, the process will require working through the five stages of grief.

DENIAL Following Harris, public-sector unions around the country at first claimed the ruling was unclear or that it didn’t apply to them. They were proved wrong on both counts, but it didn’t stop union leaders from calling in a few markers from politicians whose offices were bought largely with confiscated union dues money.

Major public-sector unions combined spent $196 million on political activities and lobbying during the most recent election cycle, and when the Janus ruling makes right-to-work protections the law of the land, the politicians who cash those checks will be pressured to pass legislation to make the hurt go away.

The strategy has never worked, nor is it intended to. But if it’s deployed with sufficient skill and audacity, it can at least buy the unions enough time to proceed to the next stage.

ANGER Public-employee union leaders in Washington, and later Oregon, responded to the Harris ruling with predictable, though incomprehensible, rage, which they directed not at themselves for mismanaging their orPAGE 28 n FREEDOM MATTERS

ganizations’ affairs to the point where workers had to be dragooned into joining, but toward anyone who dared point out the elephant in the room.

Still in denial about the outcome, the unions simply decided not to inform their members – many of whom didn’t know they were in a union to begin with – that dues and/or agency fees were now optional rather than mandatory. Undaunted, the Freedom Foundation assembled an army of paid canvassers who knocked on thousands of doors in both Washington and Oregon informing caregivers of their newly affirmed rights.

The unions fired back by forming a dark-money attack arm it ironically dubbed the Northwest Accountability Project. Bankrolled by millions in union money, the organization has just one mission: Smear the Freedom Foundation.

Its handiwork has included a crudely produced mailer, which it sent to the neighbors of Freedom Foundation CEO Tom McCabe, warning them a dangerous character lived among them. A robocall with the same message was soon to follow.

The group then branched out by trying to identify and punish Freedom Foundation staff, board members and donors. All the while, a steady stream of incoherent op-eds ghost-written for union operatives by NWAP showed up in local newspapers and a website and Facebook page spewed the vilest opinions imaginable.

If anything, the whole enterprise has done more to help the Freedom Foundation than its organizers. The caregivers evidently reason that anyone hated this much by the union can’t be all bad.

BARGAINING In order for the Freedom Foundation to inform all of the thousands of healthcare and childcare providers languishing in union bondage that the hour of liberation had arrived, it first needed to know who they were. Like all government employees from the governor on down, their contact information is a matter of public record and must be made available to the taxpayers who fund their salaries.

The unions, however, have chal-

workers anxious to be certified and, thus, easily deceived into think union membership is still mandatory.

ACCEPTANCE

lenged access to the names with a never-ending series of lawsuits, motions and courtroom legerdemain.

When the cases are decided on their merits, the unions always lose.

But it takes time for the process to play out, and that’s a tradeoff they’re willing to make in the bargaining phase.

DEPRESSION Depression is a mood disorder in which the sufferer often lashes out at those they wrongly believe to be the cause of their misfortune.

During the 2016 election cycle, for example, Washington state’s public employee unions got together to sponsor a ballot initiative whose only objective was to prevent the Freedom Foundation from accessing the mailing list of state-compensated caregivers to inform them of their opt-out rights. Knowing the voters wouldn’t support so brazen a personal attack, the ballot measure was assigned a title that made it appear its purpose was to protect seniors from identity theft.

Although blatantly unconstitu-

tional, the measure passed but will ultimately be rendered moot with the passage of Janus.

With the collaboration of their friends in elected office, the unions have also imposed numerous scorched-earth policies that, while not quite preventing workers from opting out, certainly make the process much more difficult.

For example, members wanting to opt out are often informed they can only submit their written demand during a little-advertised 10-day annual window. Unions also frequently take the highly unusual position that every worker not only wants to be a union member but actually is a member until he or she successfully navigates the complicated opt-out procedure.

Even more audaciously, the unions often arrange for workers to be required to attend state-sponsored training sessions in order to be certified for their positions. These workshops, however, turn out to be nothing but thinly disguised recruiting opportunities for the unions, which are given unfettered access to uninformed

To be fair, unions have never actually accepted that they don’t have a God-given right to skim the paychecks of employees who, at best, tolerate the abuse of their rights as the cost of keeping their job or, at worst, don’t even realize it’s happening to them.

Janus, however, may be an eyeopener for them.

Unlike Harris, which only freed a relative handful of quasi-public employees who, by definition, never interacted with one another to begin with, Janus will break like a tidal wave across government workplaces all over the nation.

This time, pretending it never happened and spending the workers’ own money on schemes to keep them in the dark won’t be good enough. The story will be front-page news in thousands of newspapers and websites.

More importantly, it will be the topic of conversation around the water cooler of every government office building. Everyone will know they have the right to opt out of union servitude and, if history is any judge, millions will.

The unions, of course, know this, and they’ve had years to prepare for the onslaught to come. Any other organization would have spent the time figuring out how to make union membership something the workers might actually want once they can no longer be forced to join, but that’s not how these people think.

The guess here is that, once the Janus ruling is handed down, the unions will follow the familiar script of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

The difference this time is that they won’t be playing the game with a made-up scapegoat like the Freedom Foundation. They’ll be playing it with thousands of workers who’ve seen union corruption for what it is and want nothing more than to be free of it once and for all.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 29

Mr.

Puzder

goes to

Washington* * & Oregon, too.

President Trump’s original pick to be Secretary of Labor delivers the keynote address at both of the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquets, and has some choice words for public-sector unions.

W

ith hundreds of angry union activists protesting his appearance for two consecutive nights at the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquets in late September, Andrew Puzder was unsparing in his opinion of how the unions representing public employees have perverted the governing process – and why organizations like the Freedom Foundation are needed to curb their influence.

FF: How do government employee unions differ from

their counterparts in the private sector?

AP: The biggest difference would be the way the negotiation works. With private-sector unions, you actually have collective bargaining because there are two sides that can bargain.

You have the management side, which the PAGE 30 n FREEDOM MATTERS

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 31

owners select. These can be public shareholders or individuals that are not public, but private, shareholders. And then you have the union representing the workers.

In the public sector, that changes because the public unions have become a force in elections. The money they collect in dues are given to politicians -- particularly politicians on the left. Progressive politicians who are very supportive of unions.

So when they go into the negotiations, it isn’t a situation where the management representative — in this case a taxpayers’ representative, let’s say a governor or mayor, for example — is disinterested.

In fact, they are tied to the union, which may responsible for electing them, and certainly can claim, in part, they were responsible for raising campaign funds and thay they sent voters — union members — to the polls.

So what you end up with is, rather than two sides negotiating, you have the union with substantial influence on what normally would be considered the management side of the equation.

Let’s say a union goes in to negotiate with the governor and represents public employees, and they’re trying to get an increase in pension benefits. And the governor, who’s coming up for election and needs union support to win, says, “I can’t give you an increase in pension benefits.

The state just doesn’t have the money.”

The union then says, “Look, you need our support to win this election. And if you agree to raise our pension benefits, some other governor way down the road will have to worry about it, not you. Why don’t you just agree to the increase now? You’ll get our support and you really won’t have to suffer any consequences.”

What we’ve ended up with around the country are huge, huge pension liabilities that often exceed the rest of the state’s budget altogether. California and Illinois are probably the best examples.

They’ve come close to bankrupting both of those states, disserving not only the taxpayers but also doing a disservice to the pensioners because they’re not playing straight with those people.

“If (Janus)

FF: What do you expect to happen in Janus v. AFSCME, the case that would effectively bring right-to-work protections to every public employee in the country?

AP: The nice thing is that Justice Gorsuch is the one who’ll cast the deciding vote, which really demonstrates the importance of the voters having elected President Trump last November.

Whatever Justice Gorsuch decides, it will be based on the law and the Constitution, not his political agenda, and it’s such a blessing he was named to fill Justice Scalia’s seat on the court rather than someone who could have tipped the balance in the other direction.

With respect to the case itself, I think right-to-work is something all workers should have and I’d be delighted to see the court rule that way — particularly because public employees only account for 15 percent of the workforce, but they account for 50 percent of the total number of union members in the country.

If (Janus) is upheld by the Supreme Court and all government employees are given right-to-work protections, publicsector unions are going to lose significant, significant power and, really, I couldn’t be happier.

President Roosevelt — and I mean Franklin Roosevelt, who was a progressive and ultra-lefty — didn’t believe public employees should be able to unionize.

George Meany, the president of the AFLCIO, didn’t believe public employees should be able to unionize.

This isn’t just a right-versus-left issue. Collective bargaining by public employees is antidemocratic and doesn’t serve the interests of taxpayers.

That said, I don’t think public-sector unions will cease to be a powerful force just because the court gives their members the right to leave the union. By and large, unions and progressive politics are popular with government workers because they involve bigger government.

You’re not going win over many government employees by promising to shrink the size of government, because that’s how they earn their living.

is upheld by the Supreme Court and all government employees are given right-to-work protections, public-sector unions are going to lose significant, significant power and, really, I couldn’t be happier.”

FF: There should always be an adversarial relationship between labor and management, right? It doesn’t have to be contentious, but they should at least represent two fundamentally different interests.

AP: Collective bargaining presumes there’s bargaining going on. And when one side controls both sides of the bargain, you’re bargaining with yourself.

PAGE 32 n FREEDOM MATTERS

FF: Why are unions struggling to maintain their members?

AP: Unions are increasingly losing relevance in the private sector. The jobs being created these days aren’t in the manufacturing or mining industries, which lend themselves well to unionization.

The new jobs are in computer programming and the medical field -- jobs that depend more on your education

and qualifications to get than your union.

Then, too, people have ceded much of their relevancy to the government. In the old days, the appeal of unions was that they’d take care of you in your old age, or when you were sick or lost your job.

Nowadays people have come to expect the government to provide those services, so they don’t believe they need unions as much as they once did.

When the unions started, they really had some legitimate issues. We had child labor laws that were enacted, we had minimum wage, we had overtime and retirement benefits ... all of these were union-inspired issues, but they ceded the ability to enforce these rights to the government—whether it be the Equal Opportunity Employment Commision or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.

All of those departments are run by union members because they’re run by government employees. So the unions have become progressively less relevant.

In the 1950s, unions were about 35 percent of the workforce. Now they’re down to about 6.4 percent the private sector.

Unions are in trouble. They just are. They’re facing an existential threat from the Trump administration, and they know it.

You can hear it. They’re in panic mode.

FF: How familiar are you with the Freedom Foundation and the work we’re doing to thwart the influence of public-sector unions here on the West Coast and, for that matter, all around the country?

AP: The Freedom Foundation is unlike other think tanks.

You guys actually get things done.

It’s not about writing papers or having intellectual discussions. I’ve got good friends and the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and they’re great guys.

But you guys actually defend workers’ fundamental rights by making collective bargaining transparent, by giving government workers a choice as to whether they’ll pay union dues—which is huge—and by prohibiting the unions from using taxpayer dollars to advance the progressive left’s agenda.

You’ve had real success in this fight, and I don’t know a lot of people who can claim that.

The Freedom Foundation has been a true workers’ friend and advocate by assuring that these home healthcare workers understand their first amendment rights and their options.

The result has been a significant decline in union membership and dues. And when you take away the unions’ money, they’ve got big problems.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 33

PAGE 34 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Got

Cash?

If the banks, retailers and the government all get their way, you won’t for much longer

A

t midnight on Nov. 8, 2016, India’s prime minister announced a ban on 500- and 1,000- rupee notes (worth roughly $6 and $12 American, respectively) which represented 85 percent of the money in circulation all over the globe.

Two weeks later, U.S. Citibank warned that its Australian branches were going cashless, as were about 900 of its Swedish branches.

ATMs started disappearing overnight.

France has banned cash transactions exceeding E1,000 euros ($1,170), while Spanish citizens can’t enter into transactions over E2,500 euros using cash and Uruguayans are prohibited from cash transactions over $5,000.

Canada, Mexico, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand and Ireland are also proposing, or are in the early stages of implementing, programs that will either ban or restrict cash transactions.

What about the future of cash in the largest economy on the planet? Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and others have floated the idea of eliminating the $50 and $100 bills.

By GERRIT SHILMAN

Director, Administration & Finance

JP Morgan Chase has ceased accepting reserve notes for all its loan products.

So much for “For All Debts, Public and Private.”

Try breaking a Benjamin at your local convenience store, or walk into your bank branch and try withdrawing say $5,000.

I did this about a year ago and I was treated like a criminal. The branch manager asked me why I needed so much cash, whether I intended spending it all at one time and had I considered the safety issues of carrying that much money.

My answers were: 1.) “None of your business;” 2.) Refer to No. 1; and, 3.) “I feel perfectly safe.”

On my way out of the bank, the manager suggested I call ahead if I ever needed that much cash at one time in the future. This from the 10th-largest bank in the world with more than $2 trillion in assets.

Why are governments, central banks, commercial banks, merchants and credit card companies pushing us to a cashless system? Is it because paper money carries germs and 90 percent of large bills show

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 35

traces of cocaine?

Nope, it turns out they each have their own agenda.

Governments don’t like cash because it’s used by employers and criminals to evade taxes. Central banks don’t like cash because it interferes with their efforts to manipulate economies.

The U.S. Federal Reserve, to name just one, admits it has no idea how many dollars are actually in circulation.

The banking system sees cash as a huge expense – armored cars, walkup tellers, ATMs and the occasional robbery come to mind. Merchants prefer plastic over cash primarily because consumers will spend considerably more when using a credit or debit card.

Credit card companies and their bank partners know cash transactions do not generate a 3 percent fee.

The cash police have at least one legitimate argument. It’s estimated there are three dozen $100 bills in circulation for every man, woman and child in the U.S. If you don’t have your share, you’re not alone.

So where are all those C-notes?

Most are in the underground economy.

Criminals bail them like hay. They use them in transactions in which the currency is weighed, not counted.

One million dollars in $100 bills weighs 22 pounds. One million dollars in $20 bills weighs 110 pounds, which creates a transportation problem.

Likewise, dishonest employers who pay workers in cash to evade taxes account for another significant portion of the missing $100s. However, the largest stash of $100s is held by groups and individuals in foreign countries who don’t have access to a reliable banking system.

They hoard large-denomination U.S. currency because they are universally recognized and easily traded.

Lastly, who knows how many $100s are hidden under the mattresses of millions of Americans who don’t trust banks, the stock market, their PAGE 36 n FREEDOM MATTERS

government or all of the above?

Another argument large bill haters have is that central banks around the globe like to manipulate economies with interest rates. One tool in their bag of tricks is the use of negative interest rates.

Yes, the banks actually charge you to store your money. This has happened recently in Japan and a few European countries.

What would you do if your bank

charged you for your deposit? I’d remove my money from the bank in large bills (calling ahead, of course) and hide it under my mattress – which makes this banking, smoke and mirrors, strategy much less effective.

Not to worry. Central banks have a solution for that, too – push to eliminate large bills and eventually all paper money. There’s just one small problem.

Currently in the U.S. cash is used

in 30 percent of all retail transactions, down from 40 percent five years ago. Debit and credit account for 45 percent and the balance is made up of electronic transfers, paper checks and other (whatever that means).

The point is, cash still makes up a sizeable part of the American economy. Without cash, for example, how would you pay for items at the church bake sale or a carwash put on by the youth soccer club?

Will every vendor at the farmer’s market have to accept plastic? What about the 7.5 percent of U.S. citizens who don’t even have a bank account?

How about the immediate need for cash in the wake of a natural disaster, when the bits and bytes that represent your bank account are not accessible because cell towers, bank branches and ATMs are under water or burned to a crisp?

And just how secure are those

1s and 0s that make up your current bank balance? Perhaps Target, Sony, the SEC, Yahoo and Equifax could shed some light on that question.

Bank robbers are a clever bunch.

It matters not whether they use a firearm or a keyboard. The end result is the same – the elimination of cash does not ensure the elimination of theft.

Then, too, there’s the question of privacy. I’m not particularly keen on the fact that all of my electronic purchases can be tracked. What I spend, where I spend it and when I spend it can and are traced.

On more than a few occasions, I’ve paid a merchant, who I had foolishly given my contact information in the past, and shortly thereafter been emailed a coupon or offer.

Creepy.

Similarly, we’ve all seen the ads from one website follow us to other sites. Do we really want some hacker – or anyone else, for that matter – privy to our spending habits?

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote in 1966 that, “The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owner of wealth to protect themselves.”

Recall that in 1966 the U.S. dollar was still backed by gold. Richard Nixon ended the gold standard in 1971. Since then inflation has chewed up 87 percent of the dollar’s purchasing power.

If this is the result of a monetary system no longer backed by gold, what are the consequences of a system where there isn’t even any cash?

If the end of cash is inevitable – and it is – what can we do to preserve and protect our wealth? Simple – do not bet on the dollar.

Warren Buffett is buying railroads and airlines, JP Morgan is buying literally tons of silver, Goldman Sachs tried stockpiling aluminum, Chinese citizens are stashing gold, billionaires are buying rare art and wine.

Or you can take Mark Twain’s only-half-kidding advice: “Buy land.

They’re not making it anymore.”

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 37

ACTION TIMELINE

Highlighting a few of the Freedom Foundation’s signature accomplishments over the past half year April 28: n Oregon Labor Policy Analyst Ben Straka testifies in opposition to Senate Bill 1040, which would prevent local jurisdictions in that state from adopting their own right-to-work protections. The bill, which ultimately passes in the Democrat-dominated body, was clearly a response to the activities of the Freedom Foundation both there and in Washington.

achievements that ensure open and transparent government in Washington state. Hayward was honored for his work first with Lincoln County and then in other jurisdictions around the state promoting a model resolution created by the Freedom Foundation that would open up the public collective bargaining negotiations between local communities and the unions representing government employees.

June 1:

may 2: n Outreach Coordinator Matt Hayward testifies at a meeting of the Benton County coordinators, who are considering adopting a resolution created by the Freedom Foundation ensuring that all future collective bargaining sessions between the county and the unions representing its public employees will be open to the public.

n Washington, D.C.-based Capital Research Center publishes a long article headlined “Lower Union Revenues Lead to Greater Union Harassment.” The article’s author, Michael E. Hartmann, notes: “The feisty Freedom Foundation takes various aggressive actions against unions’ collection of dues from unwitting ‘members.’”

June 8:

May 15: n Snohomish County agrees to pay a settlement of nearly $600,000 for trying to deny former county Ombudsman John Koster the right to hold political views at odds with the county council and Snohomish County Executive John Lovick. Koster, a Republican, was appointed to his position in January 2014. In October, however, he lent his name to a fundraising letter mailed out by the Freedom Foundation. His contract with the county was subsequently terminated.

He filed a wrongful termination suit and the county agreed to settle. may 16: n The Washington Coalition for Open Government presented Outreach Coordinator Matt Hayward with the organization’s Key Award. The award, given out only a handful of times every year, recognizes outstanding

PAGE 38 n FREEDOM MATTERS

n With the Freedom Foundation’s help, 80 workers from the Real Estate Services Division of Washington’s Department of Transportation (DOT) move to decertify the union, Professional and Technical Employees Local 17, that had represented them for years. The employees turned in more than enough signed petitions to call for an election, but rather than waiting for a vote, PTE 17 “disclaimed interest” – essentially surrendering without a fight because it knew it would lose.

self-governance, and free markets’ — is under attack by the Service Employees International Union, a key union in Washington state, and state government officials.”

July 6: n The Washington, D.C.-based Capital Research Center produces a YouTube video arguing in favor of protection for victims of abusive lawsuits, using the Freedom Foundation’s experience with Washington’s publicsector unions as its focal point.

July 10: n The Freedom Foundation submits an amicus brief on behalf of Rebecca Friedrichs and itself in support of a federal lawsuit that, if taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, has the potential to turn every state in the union into a right-to-work state by ensuring public employees can no longer be fired if they refuse to participate in a labor union.

July 10: n The Seattle City Council votes unanimously to impose an illegal, unconstitutional income tax that would force upper-income earners to pay at a higher rate than others.

The Freedom Foundation has long championed tax fairness and immediately vowed to pursue a lawsuit to block the new tax.

June 19:

July 11:

n The Freedom Foundation is featured in another national publication, as The Blaze publishes a long article about the organization’s struggle with public-sector unions.

Headlined, “State Officials, Union Desperately Fight to Silence Think Tank,” it explains, “The Freedom Foundation — a nonprofit think tank supporting ‘opportunity, responsible

n Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Leadership Council 14 becomes the latest union to face a lawsuit for campaign finance violations when the state Attorney General’s office filed charges alleging Council 14 failed to register and report as a political committee to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission.

Leave a legacy of freedom

August 31: n Freedom Foundation Labor Policy Director Maxford Nelsen receives the State Policy Network’s Bob Williams Award for Outstanding Achievement. Freedom Foundation founder Bob Williams has retired, but an award for issue advocacy is now being given out in his name by SPN. Williams’ ideals of action-based advocacy provide the criteria for the award, for which 68 affiliated organizations are eligible.

The Freedom Foundation’s Union Accountability Project, led by Nelsen, won the award this year for best issue campaign. Max’s award was presented at SPN’s annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas, in late August.

The wealth of our country exists in large part in the savings and hard-earned assets of good people who have endured, sacrificed and succeeded. It is their legacy that stands poised to be transferred to the next generation.

Will these funds be a windfall profit for government programs, new capital for center-left organizations? Or will they be a responsible transfer of values held dear by the good people who earned the money?

Join the fight against the tyranny of the government unions.

Become a member of the Freedom Foundation today. Donate online at www.freedomfoundation.com For information on how to become a member of our Legacy Society, contact www.freedomfoundation/legacy

September 20:

n To celebrate Employee Freedom Week from Aug. 20 to 26, the Freedom Foundation contacts public employees, including teachers, to let them know that they have the right to opt out and reclaim refunds or dues reductions from their union. Most never let us know they take this step, but we do know that at least 250 have opted out so far. The union business managers admit spending between 20 and 30 percent of dues money on politics and other items unrelated to workplace representation.

n The Freedom Foundation notches its first legal victory in California on Sept. 20 when the United Domestic Workers (UDW) agreed to grant an Orange County homecare provider’s request to leave the union – and reimburse her for dues collected while she waited.

n For the fourth consecutive year, the Freedom Foundation is spending the last weekend of the summer paying tribute to a nobler ideal than our union adversaries.

Rather than taking a holiday on Monday, Sept. 4, to celebrate Labor Day, the organization’s employees once again voted to start their three-day weekend the previous Friday, Sept. 1, and treat Monday like any other work day. The impromptu holiday was dubbed Right-to-Work Day.

october 3: n The national cable news outlet One America News invites Freedom Foundation Labor Policy Director Max Nelsen to explain the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court Case, Janus v. AFSCME. october 4:

September 1:

September 4:

Oregon and Bellevue. Both events were well attended by supporters and guests, in addition to noisy, obscenity-filled protests orchestrated by unions that recognize how badly they’re losing to the Freedom Foundation.

september 25: n Freedom Foundation chief litigation attorney David Dewhirst argues before a Washington state hearing examiner that the Teamsters had committed an “unfair labor practice” by refusing to negotiate with the Lincoln County commissioners in February.

The commissioners in September adopted a transparency resolution that declared that all future public employee collective bargaining negotiations would occur in an open public forum. The examiner would later dismiss the union’s complaint.

September 28-29: n The Freedom Foundation hosts its annual banquets on successive evenings in

n The Washington State Supreme Court denies SEIU 775’s petition for discretionary ruling, which effectively upholds a lower court ruling that the Freedom Foundation is entitled to access the schedule of training sessions held by the state for home-based caregivers.

October 13: n A Seattle judge dismisses the central claim in a lawsuit filed by SEIU 775 against the Freedom Foundation, which seeks to inform thousands of their legal right not to pay no dues or fees to the union. The suit accused the Freedom Foundation of “tortious interference” in the union’s expectation to collect dues from the workers.

October 17: n The Kittitas Board of Commissioners announce the county will hold a public hearing on Nov. 7 to consider a change to the county code that would open collective bargaining sessions with the unions representing county employees to the public. The commissioners have been working closely with Freedom Foundation Outreach Coordinator Matt Hayward on the plan.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 39

Non-Profit Organization U.S Postage

PAID

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

Olympia, WA Permit No. 462