Freedom Matters spring-summer 2019

Spring/Summer 2019

Volume 4, No. 1

‘Have It Our Way’ Union Leaders See Fast-Food Workers as a Target of Opportunity. Story, Page 10

A Publication of the Freedom Foundation

A

ccording to the Freedom Foundation’s mission statement, the organization was founded in 1992 to advance the ideals of “free markets and limited, accountable government.”

Since 2013, however, our singular focus has been battling against public-sector unions.

Does that mean our goals changed?

Depends on who you ask.

Our adversaries, of course, will argue that union-busting is an end unto itself for us because we’re doing the bidding of outof-state billionaires and big corporations who want to exploit workers.

And as usual, they have it exactly backwards.

Neither the Freedom Foundation nor its donors benefit directly when a union member opts out. And since our beef is with government employee unions, why exactly would big corporations care one way or the other?

Meanwhile, unions fully expect to squeeze hundreds of dollars a year in dues from the paycheck of every single member.

Under the circumstances, whose motives and credibility are more suspect?

None of which is to suggest we don’t have good reasons for what we do, and they coincide perfectly with what the Freedom Foundation has always stood for.

That’s because public-sector unions have made themselves the sworn enemy of the principles on which the Freedom Foundation — and the nation itself — were founded.

Why would an entity that gorges itself on the wages of public employees like a parasite on a host care about “limited” government? And why would it desire accountability when its entire existence is based on sharing a portion of the dues money it skims off with corrupt lawmakers who pass legislation making the whole shady enterprise legal?

Battling unions isn’t a diversion from our overarching goals.

It’s simply recognition that they’ll never be realized without first eliminating the biggest obstacle standing in their path.

This publication, written entirely by Freedom Foundation staffers, celebrates liberty in all its forms. Liberty from union oppression is the first step, but it’s by no means the only threat posed to the liberty and livelihoods of Americans.

The Freedom Foundation was created and still exists to expose those threats and work to eradicate them.

Tom McCabe, CEO

Laura’s Coming Nationally syndicated radio host and Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham will be the keynote speaker for the Freedom Foundaiton’s annual banquet on Sept. 21, 2019, at the Bellevue Hyatt Regency.

She is keenly aware of the of stranglehold public-sector unions hold over the political process in this country, and the Freedom Foundation’s work to ensure government workers’ opt-out rights are respected will be a key component of her remarks.

Save the Date.

For ticket information, call (360) 956-3482, or visit our website at:

www.freedomfoundation.com

Volume 4, No. 1

22. In Harmeet’s Way

Which is the true judicial activist?

The liberal who ‘reinterprets’ the Constitution or the conservative who overturns precedent?

Celebrated San Francisco attorney teams with Freedom Foundation on high-profile labor reform suit.

10. You Want Dues with That?

As union membership continues to shrink in every other sector of the US economy, labor leaders are increasingly targeting fast food.

14. Let’s Make a Crooked Deal Everyone in the ever-expanding field of forgettable Democrat candidates for president is working hard to curry favor with public-sector unions.

18. Prescription for Free Enterprise Instead of tinkering with top-down ‘fixes,’ why can’t lawmakers see that healthcare is a commodity like any other and subject to the usual laws of economics?

26. Weaponizing Taxes

Contents

6. Taking Liberty

Created as a necessary evil to pay for public services, they’re increasingly being used to punish the majority’s political adversaries.

30. Look to the West

Unions are, in fact, losing members.

But the impacts are best seen in regions where policy organizations are helping the process along.

34. ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’

The 2nd Amendment is under attack from candidates who want to kill it by executive action if elected.

38. Action Timeline What has the Freedom Foundation been up to for the past six months?

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

I

By BOB BOUVATTE Litigation Counsel

n recent weeks, a number of red states — most notably Georgia, Alabama and Missouri — have signaled their desire to have the U.S. Supreme Court revisit perhaps the nation’s single most divisive issue by passing hardline antiabortion measures sure to face legal challenges.

Whatever the courts ultimately decide, the one certainty is that both sides will accuse the other of “judicial activism” at some point during the process.

Conservative pundits will point to the complete absence of any reference to a right of privacy (let alone abortion on demand) in the U.S. Constitution and condemn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that opened this particular can of worms, as perhaps the most egregious example in history of justices legislating from the bench.

Commentators on the left, meanwhile, will counter that, no matter what one thinks of Roe, it’s been settled law for 46 years and the real activists now are those clamoring to substitute their personal convictions for well-established precedent.

So which is it?

From a purely Constitutional perspective, the only valid consideration is — or should be, anyway — whether the law is correctly applied to the facts, not whether a decision is “activist” in the sense that it interferes with the designs of the other branches.

That’s precisely what the Supreme Court was commissioned to do, where the law so requires. Which explains why every incoming justice swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution while the principles of stare decisis and legislative deference have no official status and function in practice as little

PAGE 6

n FREEDOM MATTERS

AKING T

LIBERTY WHICH IS REALLY THE ACTIVIST JUDGE? THE LIBERAL WHO ‘REINTERPRETS’ THE CONSTITUTION, OR THE CONSERVATIVE WHO OVERTURNS PRECEDENT?

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 7

more than a gentleman’s (or -woman’s) agreement to respect the process.

Until you don’t.

Judges of all stripes have written in favor of overturning one case or another, or one statute or another.

So what is “judicial restraint,” really, and is it preferable to “judicial activism?”

When the justices bend over backwards to read statutes so that they are constitutional, or to otherwise avoid constitutional questions before them, this isn’t really “judicial restraint,” at least not in any positive sense.

It is an abdication of the role the court should have, and that the Founding Fathers intended it to have — the protection of every citizen from the overreaches of democratic government.

Without the courts as a safeguard, the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper.

Note, too, that our liberties are not ensured just by the Bill of Rights, but by the structural constraints on federal power inherent in the original Constitution as ratified.

The Constitution provides an anchor against the shifting tide of social preferences, but only if judges are not PAGE 8

n FREEDOM MATTERS

afraid to guard their constitutional role of independent decision-making.

(See Marbury v. Madison, the landmark 1803 case that first made clear the responsibilities of our most enigmatic branch of government.)

A necessary corollary of this is that when the court gets it wrong — for example, when it reads certain clauses out of the Constitution (Commerce Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment, etc.), a later court should not be paralyzed by stare decisis and has every right and responsibility to restore the meaning of the text for future generations.

The Rule of Law literally requires the court to renege on the “Rule of Judges” when the two are in conflict.

That’s especially true when the intended meaning of the Constitution is clear, as it so often is. And a simple revitalization of the idea that words have meaning — and must be given effect — is the key concept here.

Faithful application of language is somewhat broader/different than the theory of originalism that many of the justices have embraced, and it is certainly

different from the “Living Constitution” theory.

But without some objective anchor, based in the text, our rights can be ignored or eliminated altogether at the whim of whatever the current majority decides is best for all.

This idea, termed “judicial engagement” by some commentators, is not at all like the “judicial activism” employed by the left.

True judicial activism, like “judicial restraint,” also leads back to a system in which only “might makes right” — a system of men rather than laws.

This type of judicial activism believes judges possess some special ability to ascertain what has become part of the American social fabric and elevates them to the status of a Super-Legislature in which each of the anointed nine — for now — justices is encouraged to filter his or her decisions through the prism of their individual concept of what is right.

This type of judging may be good for obtaining (relatively) speedy changes in the law, but it does nothing to alter underlying social norms and leads instead to decades of lasting political strife.

“Judicial engagement,” on the other hand, would rely upon the political branches to work changes in the social fabric and defer to them when appropriate (i.e., when the Constitution is silent on the matter), but would call upon judges to act impartially in striking any and all laws that infringe upon our fundamental liberties as individuals.

It would be fair to say that under the “Living Constitution” strain of judicial activism, by contrast, there are simply no liberties so “fundamental” as to take precedence over the state’s interests in that way.

Make no mistake — that’s a feature, not a bug. Properly understood, the real problem with “judicial activism” is not that it takes action, but its abandonment of the rule of law — criticism that is, again, also justly leveled at “judicial restraint.”

Fundamentally, the problem with both “activism” and “restraint” is that they suggest the judge is relying on something other than an objective application of the law.

It is a problem inherent in a system that requires human beings to make impartial decisions concerning laws passed by other humans. But it can mostly be avoided by a good-faith application of governing authority.

Perhaps a better phrase than “judicial engagement” (one that some commentators have preferred) is “judicial fidelity” — fidelity to the intent that is clearly expressed in the text, whether it fits with the judge’s policy preference or not.

None of this is to suggest a properly engaged court is incapable of doing things the left likes, too. The Constitution does occasionally require that.

Yes, it would likely overturn Kelo v. City of New London (allowing governments to acquire property via eminent domain for just about any purpose) and maybe a few other decisions endorsing an unrestrained view of regulatory powers (for example, Wickard v. Filburn on the Commerce Clause).

But the Roberts Court recently overturned U.S. v. Korematsu (upholding Japanese internment camps during World War II), and members of the current court have also suggested they might revisit some aspects of our highly state-friendly Fourth Amendment case law (such as the “third-party” doctrine that holds there is no expectation of privacy for documents held by a third party, such as an Internet provider or cell phone service provider).

When a decision is wrong at the time it’s decided, and the court consistently refuses to reconsider it, that arguably raises more legitimate questions about the court and its role than “judicial activism” or “judicial engagement” (and definitely “judicial fidelity”) possibly could.

To place the “reliance interests” argument in perspective, should Plessy v.

Ferguson (separate but equal) or the Dred Scott Case (ordering the return of escaped slaves) still be the law of the land?

Stability is of course to be desired, everything else being equal, but not when it serves to perpetuate a violation of our rights to life, liberty and property.

In case anyone is keeping track, the court has continually increased its level of comfort in this approach, despite criticism from all sides. The retirement of certain liberal justices has been one big reason for this, but equally important is the replacement of judges in the “Bork Model” (for example, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), who often seemed to value “judicial restraint” above all else.

The late Justice Scalia was a noted proponent of deferring to government agencies’ own interpretations of the laws that are supposed to limit them, for instance, and was generally friendly to the unlimited view of federal power endorsed by his colleagues on the left. His successor, Justice Neil Gorsuch, on the other hand, seems inclined to exercise the court’s

prerogatives vigorously, while remaining impartial to either side’s politics.

Certainly not the least of the nonpartisan victories for freedom that have transpired since his joining the Court is the 2018 Janus decision, which held that the First Amendment’s protection of free speech prohibits the compelled subsidization of public-sector unions by American workers.

And predictably, cries of “judicial activism” have accompanied this and almost every instance where the Roberts Court has protected individual liberties against the ever-expanding Leviathan (or even thought about doing so, for those who remember the constitutional challenges to Obamacare).

The controversy, of course, will never abate. “Judicial activism” will continue to function as an equal-opportunity pejorative as long as there are judges of pride and passion aligned on either side of every argument. After all, the whole point of jurisprudence in the first place is to interpret what our elected representatives put on paper in presumably unequivocal terms.

If we need judges and justices to translate what’s written in plain English, why should anyone be surprised to find little or no consensus on which two-word phrase best describes the process?

Questions? Comments? Contact the editor at jrhodes@freedomfoundation.com.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 9

PAGE 10

n FREEDOM MATTERS

You want

Dues

with that?

F

By BOAZ DILLON With their Policy Analyst membership numbers suffering in every other sector of the US economy, union leaders are increasingly eyeing fast food as a target of opportunity

or years now, labor union organizers have recognized the unmined gold represented by the fast-food work industry.

Publicly, they claim fast food workers are often overlooked and mistreated by their corporate employers, and that many of them work in unsafe or unsanitary conditions and are drastically underpaid. In private, however, their motivation has less to do with the workers’ welfare than it does the sheer number of potential dues-payers in play.

And it doesn’t hurt that the overwhelming majority are also young, naiive and easily manipulated.

Even so, the industry has largely resisted union overtures due to the high turnover rate of employees and pushback from the large fast-food franchises.

Since 2015, unions in the Pacific Northwest have been among the most aggressive seeking to organize fast-food workers. The most notable group within this trend is the Burgerville Worker’s Union (BVWU).

Last spring, after countless battles with management, a Burgerville in southeast Portland became the first fast food restaurant to have a federally recognized union.

Burgerville’s management was not in favor of the union from the beginning and even highlighted that the company already paid its workers 20 percent more than the fast-food industry standard.

Nevertheless, Burgerville employees pushed for unionFREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 11

Burgerville employees in Portland, already making 20 percent more than the industry standard, demand to unionize.

ization with some of their ludicrous demands including a $5-an-hour pay increase as well as affordable health insurance.

Another demand brought to the bargaining table was the employees’ ability to wear buttons festooned with political statements, despite these political stances only representing the beliefs of the employee and not the company.

The fast-food establishment’s management was heavily criticized in Northwest media outlets for being anti-union, when in reality what its employees were demanding was wildly unrealistic compensation for the low-skill work they do.

Following unionization of the first location, four other Burgerville locations have demonstrated enough support to justify a vote on unionization.

Little Big Burger is another Northwestbased fast-food chain whose employees are attempting to impose a union contract on their employer.

Because of Burgerville’s success, the Little Big Burger’s employee union, called the “Little Big Union,” is following PAGE 12

n FREEDOM MATTERS

in the footsteps of its service industry counterparts.

Little Big Union’s demands are similar to those of the BVWU, including things like higher pay, childcare, quality healthcare and so-called “sanctuary workplaces.”

Recently, the fast-food labor group even took to the streets to march and make a public declaration of its intent to organize.

What was intended as a demonstration to create awareness by Little Big Union looked more like a collection of Marxist cosplay enthusiasts pretending to march against their corporate employers.

Despite their efforts, Little Big Burger has continued to refuse to recognize the Little Big Union. At this point, it’s possible for the employees to petition to the National Labor Relations Board to hold an election.

Although the only locally successful efforts to be seen in fast-food unions is with Burgerville’s Portland locations, there’s little doubt labor groups would like to see the fast-food industry unionized on a national scale.

For example, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has long been

a big advocate for organizing fast food chains — specifically McDonalds and Wendy’s — with little regard for the longterm impacts of such a development for anyone but union leaders.

Nationwide, the service industry provides millions of entry-level jobs to employees with little to no work experience or the opportunity to acquire it. Most often, these jobs are a perfect fit for high school and college students working part-time around their school schedule.

Because of the minimal skill and expertise needed to work these jobs, the starting pay is usually minimum wage. If given their way, unions would increase the pay of fast-food employees far in excess of the actual value they are providing.

Consequently, unionization in the fastfood industry could prove disastrous for the very workers whose best interests unions claim to be representing.

As is always the case in free-market economies, when an employer is forced to increase wages, it will, in turn, try to pass along the increase to consumers by raising the price of the good or service being sold.

Fast food’s biggest be the employers’ answer? appeal boils down to two More than likely, autofactors — it’s fast and it’s mation will not simply cheap. Arbitrarily changing “fill the gap” but instead the latter variable destroys replace a large number of the entire business model employees. by forcing the employer to After all, why grossly raise prices beyond what overpay a low-skilled consumers — at least laborer for a task that enough of them to keep the can be easily and cheaply business profitable — are accomplished by a robot, willing to voluntarily pay. especially when a robot can’t When businesses begin strike or file an unfair labor to see their profit margins practices complaint? decrease, this inevitably Not to mention, a kiosk results in layoffs and store won’t be wearing an “abolish closings — neither of which ICE” or anti-Trump pin when benefits workers who taking someone’s order might otherwise have been as did certain Burgerville employed there. union employees, creating a Alternatively, business backlash from customers. owners can also accelerate One of SEIU’s main the trend of replacing fleshplatforms in its campaign to CaliBurger has begun experimenting with an automated hamburger and-blood employees with machine dubbed “Flippy” to get around the inefficiency and expense organize fast food franchises machines that never unionize of paying low-skilled humans $15 an hour to perform the same task. is instituting a base pay of at or demand higher wages. least $15 an hour. If it were If you’ve recently visited a McDonald’s, burgers. Flippy is highly efficient and said to become successful in these endeavors, for example, there’s a good chance you’ve to be capable of flipping as many as 2,000 employers would more than likely start to already experienced this phenomenon. burgers in a single day without a break. turn to the non-human alternative.

In many locations around the country, In addition to replacing line cooks by As hypothetical as all this might sound, franchise owners have installed “ordering cooking burgers, Flippy even cleans the chances are this reality is approaching kiosks” allowing customers to place their grill at the end of the day. much faster than you might think. order and pay without interacting with a Arby’s, meanwhile, has begun impleIn Shanghai, KFC has already opened single employee. menting ovens that have an automatic up an entirely human-free restaurant.

From the customer’s point of view, holding setting, allowing employees Although they claim they are ordering from a kiosk ensures the order will to have food prepared for the next day attempting to bolster the rights and consist of exactly what they want, avoiding without having a crew come in hours livelihoods of fast-food employees, any potential human error from a human before the restaurant opens. unions could end up pushing them into being manning the register.

Even certain fast-food pizzerias are extinction.

In addition, it’s simple to use and the introducing robots to help aid in food Their unrealistic demands could procedure is relatively quick. preparation. These robots can do tasks result in more automation, thus causing With multiple kiosks, the entire like spreading the dough, applying the thousands of employees to lose their jobs. process is streamlined. Most people sauce, and even taking the pizza in and Meanwhile, as automation increases do not go to a fast-food restaurant for out of the oven. it is more likely the industry will hire a the human interaction and full dining Some argue the addition of robots in small handful of employees per location experience. They go there to get their food the fast-food industry will not replace who know how to maintain and manage quick and cheap. workers, but rather fill a gap and allow the robots to ensure the franchise runs The ease of access with the kiosk restaurants to work at maximum smoothly. allows customers to get in and get out. efficiency.

As always, these unions have not really Secondly, it benefits the employer in The fast-food industry has been thought their plan all the way through. two ways — fewer employees to pay to experiencing a record high turnover Many of them see fast-food employees perform menial tasks and more customer rate in recent years, and by increasing as an untapped cash cow. With millions satisfaction because of a now-streamlined automation, franchises can avoid the of employees working in the fast-food practiced that can ensure return business. sting of employees up and quitting on a industry, successful unionization could Cashiers are far from the only fast-food moment’s notice. open a massive income stream for the labor employees who might become obsolete But what if more fast-food employees union. in the near future, by the way. Some started organizing and making demands But there won’t be any dues to collect if chains are already experimenting with similar to those at Burgerville and Little the majority of the employees are phased out. robots that flip and cook burgers, thus Big Burger?

So much for improving workplace and eliminating the need of a fry cook.

If fast-food employees were to unionize wages.

CaliBurger, for example, has begun more locations and demand perks installing “Flippy,” an automated fry like $15-an-hour pay at the minimum, Questions? Comments? Contact the cook whose sole purpose in life is to flip healthcare and vacation time, what would editor at jrhodes@freedomfoundation.com.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 13

By ASHLEY VARNER Vice President for Communications

T

o the Democrat party, unions are the belle of the ball.

In the increasingly entertaining competition for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020, literally dozens of declared candidates are battling to outLoony Left each other — and all to curry favor with organized labor leaders who control vast campaign resources bought and paid for with someone else’s dues money.

It’s not a new phenomenon, but one thing is likely to be different in the looming race is the speed with which the unions will release their endorsement announcements.

Many union bosses got burned during the last presidential primary, making early endorsement decisions against the wishes of much of their rank-and-file membership.

PAGE 14

n FREEDOM MATTERS

LET’S a MAKE

(crooked)

DEAL!

Democratic presidential hopefuls outdoing themselves to curry favor with public-sector union leaders

Treating workers Dishonest-Lee since 1932

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 15

Early endorsements for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); and, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), for example, angered local affiliates across the country who wanted their leadership to hold off, or preferred her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Nor did the rift disappear as union leaders hoped. Many locals made separate endorsements, many Sanders supporters stayed home in November and Donald Trump won a record number of union households for a Republican presidential candidate.

Expect the unions to be more cautious this time — and for those courting their favor to be ever more accommodating to union demands.

Pay attention to what the presidential hopefuls promise, as it will give important insight into the policies they may champion once in office.

Teachers Unions

Perhaps because the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) was the first union to endorse Hillary Clinton in 2015, the Democrat primary hopefuls are elbowing one another aside to promise teachers the moon.

Many of the 23 Democrats in the crowded primary have come out in support of teacher strikes around the country and mouth empty platitudes about increasing teacher pay, decreasing class sizes and prioritizing public education.

What they’re really saying is they want to create demand for more teachers (whom they anticipate joining a union), raise taxes for the higher wages they intend to leverage to buy votes, and restrict educational choice, such as (largely) nonunion private or charter schools.

In such a crowded field, the candidates are trying to distinguish themselves from the pack.

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, for example, is positioning himself as a champion for teachers by touting his teacher husband on the campaign trail. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, meanwhile, reminds everyone who will listen that she’s a teacher herself and that, “It would be pretty fabulous,” to have a teacher in the White House.

Warren has vowed to make a public school teacher her Secretary of Education in what can only be characterized as PAGE 16

n FREEDOM MATTERS

a clear signal that charter and private schools would take a back seat to increased funding of government schools and teacher unions.

In February, during the Denver teachers’ strike, Sanders tweeted, “(O)ur teachers should be the best paid, not among the worst-paid. I stand with Denver teachers. We must invest in public education because our students and teachers deserve better.”

Not to be outdone, in March California Sen. Kamala Harris became the first of the herd to announce a brazen scheme to buy teacher votes with the promise of a $13,500 federally funded pay raise.

Her proposal was music to the ears of AFT president Randi Weingarten, who replied on Twitter, “THIS is incredible!! @KamalaHarris is putting attracting and retaining teachers front and center.

This would make a huge difference in the lives of educators, our students and our communities. #AFTVotes #FundOurFuture” Which future is Weingarten talking about — the students’ or her union’s?

Not to be out-pandered, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, on a campaign stop in Las Vegas during April, echoed the sentiment that the federal government should play a role in increasing teacher pay.

While teachers’ union leaders love the attention and being bribed with more government funding, Weingarten said the AFT doesn’t expect to make an endorsement until next spring, and National Education Association (NEA) president Eskelsen Garcia said the timing of their endorsement will be “very, very fluid.”

In other words, the union is still for sale to the highest bidder.

SEIU

For years, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has led the Fight for $15 movement, to increase lowwage, hourly and part-time pay to $15 an hour — regardless of how many people lose their jobs in the process.

Everywhere minimum wages have been raised to $15 an hour, more people suffer than are helped. Mom-and-Pop shops have shuttered their businesses, restaurants and retail stores have increased prices to cover the new costs (only to see fewer customers), and a variety of companies have moved toward automation to manage the increased labor costs (not to mention machines don’t strike).

Still, the 2020 presidential hopefuls are clamoring for that SEIU endorsement, and they know the Fight for $15 is their ticket.

Former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro announced that everyone on his campaign gets paid at least $15 an hour — even the interns.

In his opening campaign speech, former vice president and third-time presidential hopeful Joe Biden said it is, “… well past time that the minimum wage nationally be a minimum of $15” an hour.

Biden has also committed to paying his campaign staff $15 per hour.

Sanders has supported a $15 minimum wage for years, but he recently doubled down in a March tweet saying, “We will keep fighting until @McDonalds workers and all others are paid a living wage of at least $15 an hour.” (Emphasis added.)

Remember that McDonalds has announced plans to expand automation.

Fast-food employees are being duped into striking themselves out of a job altogether.

Sanders has taken to boasting that his formerly “radical” ideas in 2016 are being accepted “across the board” and are now mainstream. And ppparently, they are — at least among the 23 contenders in the Democrat primary.

Sens. Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar and Warren, along with former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Castro and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper have all promised to raise the national minimum wage to no less than $15 an hour.

Hickenlooper went out on a grandstanding limb, saying, “Where living costs are higher, like New York, Los Angeles, and maybe Las Vegas, we will go above $15 an hour.”

SEIU California backed Harris in her bid for the U.S. Senate, and now she’s returning the favor, hiring SEIU California’s former president, Laphonza Butler, as a top advisor on her campaign.

The unions know where their campaign bread is buttered.

Unfortunately, taxpayers are forced to subsidize these public employee unions in the form of government-funded paychecks.

AFSCME

“We aren’t rushing in making a decision this time around because we believe the field is so strong and we want to give people an opportunity to answer questions,” said Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation

of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Many of the Democrat contenders blasted the U.S Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, which banned mandatory dues and agency fees in the public workplace. But perhaps one of Saunders’ favorite candidates is Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who blasted Janus the day the ruling was issued.

During his time as governor, Inslee has signed into law several schemes to undermine government employees’ First Amendment rights.

One of the most despicable of these is an Inslee-supported law that created a phony layer of bureaucracy just to thwart the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Harris v. Quinn allowing Medicaidcompensated home healthcare providers to opt out of mandatory union dues and fees.

The unionconcocted scheme forces newly freed employees back into the union by placing them under the authority of a hastily created state agency, thus stripping them of their rights as individual contractors to decline union representation.

The measure violates the clear intent of both Harris and Janus to give workers more choices, and it will almost certainly not survive a serious legal challenge.

But in the meantime, it buys the unions time to think up more mischief.

From Inslee’s perspective, anything that keeps more money in the war chest of his most generous benefactor is fair game — even at the expense of the sick and elderly.

While Inslee has certainly done more than his fair share of backing up his union campaign promises with action to reward them for their support, several other presidential hopefuls understand the optics in calling for more unions and more unionization — while not allowing their

own staff to unionize.

Sanders’ campaign was the first to unionize its employees, and he, California Rep. Eric Swalwell and Castro have publicly praised the unionization of their campaign staff.

Interestingly, Biden said he provides such a great work environment, he doesn’t see his staff needing to organize.

That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of union shops, and sounds a bit like, “Unions for thee, but not for me.”

(There’s no word on whether Amy Klobuchar’s staff has organized a union, but from the work environment reported

by former Senate staffers, maybe they should.)

As dependent as many of these candidates are on union campaign cash and volunteer armies, watch for their proposals to keep people trapped under forced union representation and guarantee automatic dues deductions from government paychecks.

And as reliant as unions are on politicians to stack the deck in their favor, none is even pretending to allow people the option of opting out.

Last year, Sanders introduced legislation to outright ban right-to-work laws across the country, including the 28 states that have adopted right to work and the hundreds of thousands of government employees freed by the Janus v.

AFSCME decision.

Warren and Gillibrand have sponsored similar legislation this year, and Harris recently said she would use the “bully pulpit” to fight right to work at the national level.

“You either chase a race or shape a race,” Weingarten said of the Democrat primary.

What does this mean for the rest of us? If the unions get their way, you can bet on expanding government jobs, rolling back Janus v. AFSCME, and repealing right to work laws.

It all adds up to higher taxes to pay these salaries, and more government intrusion in our lives.

More government means less freedom. m Questions? Comments? Contact the editor at jrhodes@freedomfoundation.com.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 17

RX Free for

Enterprise Instead of constantly tinkering with top-down ‘fixes,’ why can’t lawmakers recognize healthcare is a commodity like any other and subject to the laws of economics?

A

By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor

ny resemblance between how American providers currently deliver healthcare and the concept of free markets is illusory at best and intentional fraud at worst.

I recently learned that lesson the hard way when, after mentioning to my doctor — physician’s assistant, actually — during a routine physical that I occasionally suffered from dizzy spells, she had me take an EKG and hastily diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

She then ordered a full battery of tests from a clinic affiliated with the hospital system that employed her and, over the next few days, I had a second EKG followed by an echocardiogram.

Finally, I was told I needed a nuclear stress test but, because my insurance coverage had a high deductible, the procedure would require an out-of-pocket payment of $1,000.

At which point I started thinking like a consumer instead of a patient.

PAGE 18

n FREEDOM MATTERS

I demanded a copy of my test results and forwarded them to a family member who’s spent many years interpreting EKGs and works closely with many nationally prominent cardiologists. They unanimously concluded that I didn’t have A-Fib and there was nothing in my first EKG or any of the other tests to suggest I ever did.

I subsequently changed doctors and discovered my dizzy spells were the result of Type 2 diabetes — a conclusion my original doctor undoubtedly would have arrived at eventually, but only after my insurance company had been billed for thousands of dollars’ worth of needless tests.

Was the first doctor guilty of malpractice? Conceivably, but more likely she simply succumbed to the old adage that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.

In her case, the healthcare system that signs her paychecks boasted a well-equipped heart lab with lots of

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 19

expensive equipment to pay for. Consequently, she had every incentive in the world to exhaust all the cardio possibilities before exploring anything else and none to worry about the cost to my insurance company — even if my true condition went untreated in the meantime.

But the real culprit was me, because as long as someone else was paying the bills — or seemed to be — I never demanded accountability.

If I’d spent $20,000 on a new car, I’d have haggled over the cost of every bell and whistle. But with the insurance company picking up the tab for my healthcare, I was happy to “err on the side of caution.”

And that was fine, too, from my insurer’s perspective. Its analysts know far better than I what procedures should and shouldn’t cost, and they charge me accordingly — which explains why my premiums increase by leaps and bounds every year.

“And that’s the heart of the problem in healthcare,” wrote Jonathan Bush, CEO and president of Athenahealth, Inc., in a 2014 article in Fortune, describing it as a “$2.7 billion industry that was wildly wasteful and dysfunctional long before Obamacare and remains to this day stubbornly impervious to reform.

“All too often,” he noted, “price is no object. For insured patients, the price often isn’t even a part of the decisionmaking process. It’s usually shrouded in mystery. Only weeks later, when patients’ finally see the hideous numbers, do they shudder and pray that the insurer will make them disappear.”

It wasn’t always this way. Years ago, when health insurance was more of a luxury than a necessity, a working person could afford to pay out of pocket for most routine procedures.

The experience was neither welcome nor pleasant, to be sure. But that was the point.

It encouraged consumers to shop around and providers to keep their costs affordable.

PAGE 20

n FREEDOM MATTERS

None of which is to suggest insurance companies alone are the problem and need to be removed from the equation. It’s just that we used to recognize healthcare, like any commodity, is subject to the inevitable economic forces of supply, demand and competition.

Nowadays, however, we listen to pandering politicians who’ve convinced us our health is too important to be left to the whims of the market. Unfortunately, the laws of economics can no more be ignored than the laws of gravity.

And the penalty for pretending otherwise can be just as severe.

Which brings us to the biggest, yet least excusable, cause of skyrocketing medical costs — government intervention.

In a 2017 article for The Hill, former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn — a practicing physician — stated the obvious: Healthcare costs could be reduced dramatically with the introduction of genuine competition.

“Today,” he wrote, “inefficient hospital

chains, big insurance companies and a bloated federal bureaucracy like the status quo — not because it’s the best option for American patients, but because it’s the best way for them to maintain their profit margins and power. By rolling back anticompetitive regulations and broadening the use of price transparency tools, we can level an unfair playing field and make it possible for individuals to regain control of their healthcare.”

How can healthcare be made more competitive?

Coburn offers several suggestions, including demanding the federal government unleash all of Medicare and Medicaid’s information on hospital and physician charges

by ZIP code and letting private entrepreneurs mine the data to find the most efficient providers.

Congress could take this a step further by passing a law that mandates all hospital and physician prices be published and made available to the public in a clear and concise format. As soon as people can readily access this information, they will begin voting with their feet.

“When it comes to lowering healthcare costs,” Coburn said, “we’ve tried everything but price transparency. Our best option is to empower individuals to choose what’s best for them in a free and open market.”

Obamacare, as was painfully evident from the outset, attempted to “fix” the problem by imposing more government and allowing less competition. And the latest liberal alternative, Medicare for All, would drop all pretext of free markets and empower bureaucrats to oversee the entire healthcare industry — 20 percent of the nation’s GDP — with their customary efficiency and sensitivity.

Critics who insist healthcare is too important to be run under a free-market model have it exactly backwards. In point of fact, healthcare is too important to

be relegated to any model under which the provider isn’t forced to compete for the business of its patient-clients by maximizing service and minimizing cost.

By way of example, when JVC introduced the first personal videocassette recorders in the mid-1970s, they cost around $1,500 — more than $7,000 in 2018 dollars. But as competitors entered the market, the cost came down dramatically while the quality of the product improved.

Healthcare is no exception to the rules of economics, and the proof can be seen in the history of elective, cosmetic medical procedures.

Between 1998 and 2016, prices for “Medical Care Services” in the U.S. (as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) more than doubled (a 100.5 percent increase) while the prices for “Hospital and Related Services” nearly tripled (a 177 percent increase). Those increases in the costs of medical-related services compare to only a 47.2 percent increase in consumer prices in general over that period.

On an annual basis, the cost of medical care services in the U.S. has increased almost 4 percent per year since 1998 and the cost of hospital services increased annually by 5.8 percent. Meanwhile, total inflation averaged only 2.2 percent annually during the same span.

Consider, however, that not one of the 10 most popular cosmetic procedures has increased in price since 1998 by more than the 47.2 percent, meaning that in real, inflation-adjusted terms, the cost of all 10 has actually fallen over the last 18 years.

And for the three most popular procedures in 2016 (botox, laser hair removal and chemical peel — all nonsurgical, cosmetic procedures), the nominal price for each has fallen since 1998 by double-digit percentages.

Did the technology needed to perform these procedures not improve during these years? Were the professional standards or expense of necessary training reduced? Were the overhead costs of the physicians who performed them not subject to inflation?

In each case, the answer is no. Elective, cosmetic medical procedures are subject to the same economic forces as nonelective procedures.

The difference is, they are almost never paid by a third party — neither insurance companies nor government.

As a result, consumers price shop. And the providers know they have little choice but to compete for patients who’ll gladly take their business elsewhere if it means

saving a few dollars.

The cost for a non-elective procedure like a nuclear stress test, for example, can vary by hundreds if not thousands from clinic to clinic, but the patient has no incentive to compare rates — and, in fact, is often encouraged to be suspicious of healthcare “bargains” — when someone else seems to be paying the bills.

Meanwhile, the insurance company is either discouraged or legally prevented from intervening in the process, so they simply pass the costs on to consumers in the form of higher premiums (or, in the case of Medicare and Medicaid, taxes).

Critics of market-driven healthcare reforms generally fall into the category of those who benefit from the current system.

Most healthcare providers, for example, as much as they may complain about the drudgery of filling out insurance forms and unrealistic Medicare reimbursement rates, have little interest in an alternative that may demand actual customer service and free-market competition.

Likewise, liberal lawmakers and their partners in public-sector unions envision the entire healthcare industry being consumed by government, thus enhancing their own financial and political clout.

Lastly, even many patients themselves are wary of changes that necessitate taking a more active role in their own wellness.

Such fears are only exacerbated by claims that putting healthcare on a more “business-like” footing would mean prioritizing profits over patient care.

But such concerns betray a willful ignorance of the nature of capitalism.

In a vibrant, free-market economy, consumers are more likely, not less, to find quality service at an affordable price because providers cannot survive any other way.

If they’re incapable of serving their customers, there’s always a competitor waiting in the wings who can do a better job.

And here’s the best part: It doesn’t cost a thing.

Instead of standing around waiting for warring factions in Congress and the White House to come up with a scheme everyone can agree on, the solution is as simple as recognizing that central planners can never replace the combined wisdom of millions of consumers making decisions in their own self-interest every minute of every day.

Questions? Comments? Contact the editor at jrhodes@freedomfoundation.com.

Bipartisan bill would subject drug prices to market forces Last October — all but drowned out by the media’s nightly obsession with collusion, obstruction and impeachment — President Donald Trump signed a pair of little-publicized bills intended to lower prescription drug prices by subjecting pharmaceutical companies to a healthy dose of supply and demand.

The so-called “Know the Lowest Price Act” and the “Patients’ Right to Know Drug Prices Act” both passed with bipartisan Congressional support.

As he signed the bills, Trump promised that patients “will be able to see pricing, and they’ll be able to see where they should go.

And as they start leaving certain pharmacies, those pharmacies will be dropping their prices.”

Both measures do away with “gag” clauses sometimes enforced by pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), the middlemen authorized to administer drug programs on behalf of insurance companies.

Because they work for insurers, PBMs sometimes use “gag” clauses to prevent pharmacists from informing patients if a prescription would be cheaper if purchased out of pocket rather than through their health insurance plan.

“It’s called the Law of Supply and Demand,” Trump said.

“Pretty simple. But we didn’t have that. They didn’t want to have that. A lot of people didn’t want to have that. But now we have it, and it’s going to really drive prices.”

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 21

PAGE 22

n FREEDOM MATTERS

in

Harmeet’s

way

In her celebrated career as a high-profile attorney, Republican Party official & Fox News analyst, Harmeet Dhillon has worked on many cases with the cream of the conservative cause. Now she’s working with the Freedom Foundation to help free government employees from the clutches of union tyranny.

A

By MARIAH GONDEIRO Litigation Counsel

ccording to the website for Harmeet K. Dhillon’s San Francisco-based law firm, “From an early interest in constitutional litigation, to a stint at the U.S. Department of Justice, a federal appeals court clerkship, a decade of practice at prestigious international law firms, and then founding her own law firm in 2006, Harmeet’s legal career has been marked by a passion for justice, a zeal for attacking legal challenges, and an intense sense of satisfaction in helping her clients realize creative and practical solutions to seemingly intractable problems.”

Those traits were on full display earlier this year as Dhillon joined forces with the Freedom Foundation to file a lawsuit against the California

Teachers Association challenging the validity of membership agreements signed by workers before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last June in Janus v. AFSCME that did not fully inform the workers that by agreeing to pay union dues, they were waiving their First Amendment right not to.

Q:

The lawsuit you’re working on with the Freedom Foundation is your first involving public-sector unions. Were you surprised by their response?

A.

Not surprised. We’ve seen them fight very hard for several years and they were prepared for the outcome of (Friedrichs v. CTA) and then the Janus case.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 23

The state legislature and public sector unions have a symbiotic relationship. A lot of the politicians rely on unions to get elected.

This isn’t just about union power but entire government power in California.

Unions are protected by democratic politicians. I fully expected this to be a “death match,” and before it’s over it just may be that. For them.

Q:

Harmeet Dhillon discusses current CTA lawsuit on:

The unions like to characterize any challenge to their power as “out-ofstate billionaires trying to bust unions so corporations can squash workers’ rights and rake in huge profits.” Are you any of the above?

A:

No. I’m definitely an in-state interest. No one paying my bills is a billionaire. That makes no sense.

This is about education of children and fundamental services. This is not about the money on the plaintiffs’ side but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Q: Are you trying to squash workers’

rights?

A:

“Our five clients, working in a conjunction with the Freedom Foundation, have filed this type of lawsuit and other states.”

“They are claiming they have opted out of their union card contracts and, despite having opted out, the union is not letting them out until the anniversary of their one-year contract.”

“Every pay period their pay checks are being deducted, significant money in the case of the plaintiff Bethany Mendez, $1,500 a year on a meager teacher salary—constitutional violation.”

“The Supreme Court was very clear that you cannot take this money unless there’s a voluntary waiver of the First Amendment, and none of these teachers have made a voluntary waiver of the First Amendment rights.”

PAGE 24 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Absolutely not. I’m trying to vindicate worker’s rights.

Don’t get me wrong, there have been times such as the Industrial Revolution where workers were at a disadvantage.

There is much less risk of that now.

Today, they have a lot of rights and balance is tipped more in favor of worker’s rights.

Q:

Does this case have a chance of winding up in the U.S. Supreme Court?

A:

It’s entirely possible. The Janus ruling couldn’t have been more clear.

It is more likely that this case will be reviewed by the 9th Circuit to ensure there is a consistent standard of review.

Q:

Is this simply a case of enforcing Janus, or does it raise issues that weren’t addressed in Janus break new ground in its own right?

A:

All the issues arise out of Janus. Not every fact pattern is covered by Janus.

Like many cases in constitutional law, there is a general principle that needs to be applied to every context.

The right of free speech and right to be free of speech is so fundamental and courts have set a very elaborate set of rules that go to circumstances under which you can imply someone’s waiver.

We are going beyond Janus to go into more of the details, although all issues flow from Janus. We are illustrating what

a sufficient waiver, as required under Janus, should look like.

At a minimum, the union must include in its commitment card what rights the employee is giving up by signing the card such as the right to not financially support the union.

Q:

Do you believe there are lots of other teachers (and government workers of all kinds) who’d like to exercise their right to opt out in the wake of Janus but who have been intimidated by their union? If so, do you think this case will open the floodgates?

A:

Definitely. There is an aggressive lobbying effort by the union to keep them in the fold. There are union organizers trying to intimidate the teachers in their classrooms.

In many other areas like the consumer world, you have several days to change your mind. Unions are taking the position that they can be pressured into signing a contract under false pre-tenses and have no right to get out of it.

Q:

What do you hope to accomplish with this case?

A:

I hope to accomplish more freedom for teachers. For each teacher, they will choose for their own preference, which is great. It has to be a voluntary choice.

Q:

Since you filed the CTA class action, have you received inquiries from public employees?

A:

Many who have reached out to our firm and sought guidance regarding this issue.

Q:

How is this lawsuit similar to your other cases?

A:

Our firm handles a variety of cases regarding constitutional rights.

We have sued public institutions for violating constitutional rights, i.e., First Amendment rights.

We have cases where we have vindicated the rights of employees in the workplace. We treasure the Bill of Rights.

We’ve gone to court dozens of times to protect those rights.

Questions? Comments? Contact the editor at jrhodes@freedomfoundation. com.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 25

WEAPONIZING

TAXES

Thoughout most of the nation’s history, they were considered a necessary evil and imposed only to pay for necessities. But modern-day liberals have turned them into a means to encourage ‘approved’ behavior and mete out punishment to their enemies.

A

By JAMI LUND Senior Policy Analyst

merica is extraordinary in the world and throughout history in its commitment to equal treatment for all. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal ...” are the words that launched the American Revolution. While the classical liberal ideal of “equality before the law” had been coming to prominence for decades, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and United States Constitution cemented these principles into the American founding.

Today, however, there is a growing trend — ironically, among those who lay claim to these egalitarian impulses — to sacrifice fairness on the altar of political correctness. And the funding mechanism for the social

PAGE 26

n FREEDOM MATTERS

change they envision is taxes imposed on one subset of Americans to benefit another.

Historically, most cultures believed people were qualitatively different based on class, caste or race. Royalty and nobles were above the law. The law permitted unequal treatment of serfs or those of a lesser station in life everywhere on earth.

Might made right, and victims, by definition, were inferior humans.

The Protestant Reformation of the 15th and 16th Century, however, advanced a different concept — the sanctity of the individual. The Reformation was a reaction to the notion that Catholic priests stood as a qualitatively different intermediary between God and the person.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 27

The Reformation idea of the “Priesthood of believers” maintained You say, ‘There are men that all souls are equal who have no money,’ and you in responsibility and apply the law. But the law is rights. This idea became a not a self-supplied fountain, central element of classical whence every stream may liberalism espoused by obtain supplies independently philosophers like John of society. Nothing can enter Locke, who opposed the the public treasury, in favor of related concept of heredity one citizen or one class, but privilege for those who what other citizens and other govern. classes have been forced to Thomas Jefferson send. to it. channeled Locke extenFREDERIC BASTIAT, sively when drafting Economist the Declaration of Inde“The Law,” 1850 pendence. The grand themes of “human rights,” “consent of the governed,” “equality before law” and “government legitimacy” were woven into all of these documents. without due process of law; nor shall They stem from the understanding private property be taken for public use, that all people are equal — a nostrum that without just compensation.” guided the nation to ultimately address A third major theme of the American slavery and the civil rights movement. experiment in government is the need A second American governmental to limit the use of power. By the classical distinction — also based on the principle liberal theory, all are equal and, thus, none of equality — is the ownership of private has an intrinsic right to compel others to property. A divinely appointed monarch do their will. The oppression of England might assert ownership of all resources, heightened common resistance to the and serfs could only access these by the capricious use of force, so the American king’s will. Classical liberal theory holds founders instituted many ways to assure that all people have the power and right to government would only act when legiticreate value and own it. mately allowed.

The work of any man’s hands, when When advocating for American mixed with available resources, is that independence, Thomas Paine described man’s property. government as a “necessary evil.”

Enlightenment-era thinkers like James Madison was even more blunt: Locke and Adam Smith wrote that the right to property was a natural right.

“In framing a government which is to Locke described human equality and be administered by men over men, the property rights in his Second Treatise of great difficulty lies in this: You must first Government this way: enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige “(E)very man has a property in his it to control itself. A dependence on the own person: This, nobody has any right people is, no doubt, the primary control to but himself. The labor of his body on the government; but experience has and the work of his hands, we may say, taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he precautions.” (Federalist No. 51) removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath A common culture regarding governmixed his labor with, and joined to it ment’s limited legitimacy, a system of repsomething that is his own, and thereby resentatives, the separation of powers, the makes it his property.”

Constitutional limits on government and the Bill of Rights were all factors limiting The prevalence of this understanding the use of force. is why the Founding Fathers made the That foundation of the equality of man protection of private property a high and the limitation of government is under priority. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. assault today.

Constitution requires, “No person shall Such attacks are hardly new. The rise be … deprived of life, liberty or property of Communism in the early decades of

“

”

PAGE 28

n FREEDOM MATTERS

the 20th Century was an attempt to create a moral justification for seizing the reins of power.

The Marxist notion of class warfare dresses up in new language the discredited idea that some classes are intrinsically flawed and, thus, subject to uncommon negative treatment by government.

Such a philosophy turns on its head the belief that every individual deserves an equal say in government and that government can never legitimately oppress its citizens.

Not surprisingly, unmooring themselves from these standards inspired Communist states to expand the use of government oppression. In turn, these abuses of power resulted in an even more powerful elite of rulers.

The organized labor movement, as well, is founded on the same kind of class warfare.

Like communism, the union mythology about classes of evil oppressors and noble victims is nothing but an excuse to pass laws using force to achieve an arbitrary vision of “equality.”

Historical views about the differences between individuals stipulated that some kinds of people are inferior and, thus, their oppression is acceptable.

The modern evangelists of class warfare preach that some kinds of people have been bad or exploitive and it is government’s role to oppress the oppressors.

In this new, class-based mythology, the ideal is corrupted by the people promoting it. And those who facilitate the retaliation of the downtrodden expect to be paid in power and resources by the newly liberated “victims.”

One could surmise that the advocates of targeting “bad” classes, at best, have a Messiah Complex. At worst, the quest for power and resources has been their ulterior motive all along.

Politicians have long recognized demagoguery as the path to power, but Americans steeped in the values of hard work and sacrifice were suspicious of something-for-nothing promises.

As the country has become more and more affluent, however, succeed-

ing generations have been inculcated with a sense of entitlement. To such ears, the argument will resonate that the only reason they don’t have everything they want is because someone less deserving already took their share.

Proponents of these views implicitly believe that certain of their neighbors must be charged, convicted, subjected to retraining, forced to pay reparations and other remedial penalties for the unspeakable crime of achieving more success than someone else.

And increasingly, the weapon of choice for enforcing this vision is taxes.

To be clear, the revenue produced by such taxes is only part of the reason for imposing them.

Equally important is the power they provide to punish political foes and reward approved behavior.

At the national level, liberal politicians — including virtually every Democrat vying for his or her party’s presidential nomination in 2020 — aren’t the least bit bashful about making the targeting and plundering of a minority of the population the centerpiece of their campaign platforms.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DNY) have been especially outspoken about their willingness to use “targeted taxes” to achieve social goals.

Sanders, for example, vows to tax inheritances, while Ocasio-Cortez supports a 60 to 70 percent withholding rate on those making more than $10 million annually.

These proposals were developed and endorsed by Leftist think tanks funded to advance ideals related to redistribution of wealth and punishing those who persist in earning it.

The so-called Center for Economic and Policy Research, for example, states: “These proposals are not schemes to soak the rich, nor are they primarily about collecting revenue. Rather, they provide the basis for meaningful tax reform whose twin goals are reducing extreme income and wealth inequality and protecting American democracy from the predations of wealthy plutocrats.”

“

(T)he power to tax involves the power to destroy ... the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create ... Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy.

To carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which would banish that confidence which is essential to all Government.

”

JOHN MARSHALL, Chief Justice, US Supreme Court McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

Once articulated, these goals are, in turn, regurgitated by acolytes like presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for a “wealth tax” that would confiscate 2 percent of the assets of every American worth more than $50 million and 3 percent from those who net worth exceeds $1 billion.

Similarly, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the lead Democrat on the Senate Financial Committee, has introduced a measure to tax wealthy individuals annually on their investments rather than waiting until those assets are sold.

The point is to siphon off the appreciating assets of the wealthy, thus scoring points with those who aren’t. As the old saying goes, “Those who would rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the enthusiastic support of Paul.”

The practice is no less prevalent at the state level. n In Arizona, the teachers’ union last year proposed a ballot measure, the “Invest in Education Act,” to double the income tax rate on the top 1 percent of earners to raise for teacher salaries. n In Maine, the first question asked on the 2018 ballot was whether to increase taxes on the wealthy to support long-term care. n Colorado voters, meanwhile, were asked to consider Amendment 73, which increased income tax rates for top earners to fund education programs. n The Massachusetts Legislature approved the euphemistically titled “Fair Share Amendment,” a constitutional amendment that would place

a 4 percent surtax on those earning more than $1 million annually. n California’s state legislature is considering SB-378, which would slap a 40 percent estate tax on the holdings of the state’s wealthiest deceased residents. n Previously, Washington voters were offered Initiative 1098, an income tax on the wealthy to fund education.

In none of these cases have the taxes yet been adopted, but the rhetoric becomes more strident by the year.

Perhaps Americans have not fully embraced the Left’s class-envy rhetoric, but the repeated attempts make it clear a counter-culture has a relentless desire to normalize the idea that people can be treated unequally by law.

In its simplest terms, the various targeted redistribution measures require the government to use force to take money from those who’ve worked harder, saved more, taken more risks and been more successful so it can be handed it to those who haven’t.

After the ruling class takes a hefty cut for its trouble, that is.

Had the designated “rich” acquired their wealth through unjust means, say by fraud or theft, the force of law could already be rightly brought to bear. But what the Left envisions is the criminalization of outcomes rather than mere methods.

Make no mistake, taking what belongs to someone else is an injustice. To consider all persons inherently equal requires a corollary belief in each individual’s ownership of him- or herself, along with the fruits of their labor.

Leftists are hoping to exploit class envy and their campaign of vilification will provide momentum for their efforts to redistribute.

The payoff for the voter — we’re constantly assured — is as simple as putting unscrupulous politicians in charge of people with guns.

Questions? Comments? Contact the editor at jrhodes@freedomfoundation. com.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 29

PAGE 30

n FREEDOM MATTERS

West Look to the

In the wake of Janus, government workers are opting out of their unions.

But the results are best seen in states where the Freedom Foundation

By JAMI LUND is actively working to make it happen.

Senior Policy Analyst

S

By MAXFORD NELSEN Labor Policy Director

ince the U.S. Supreme Court held in its landmark June 2018 Janus v. AFSCME ruling that public employees cannot be required to financially support a union as a condition of employment, spokespersons on both sides on the highly contentious have issued conflicting versions of how much damage it subsequently inflicted on government employee unions.

With no single source tracking the comings and goings of publicsector employees, it’s no surprise that misinformation and misunderstanding have characterized much of the reporting.

To the extent any conclusions can be drawn, however, it’s clear that unions are susceptible to mass defections, but they won’t happen — or haven’t started happening yet — on their own.

Where union disinformation and decades of worker inertia go unchallenged, opt-out activity has been modest thus far. But in states where there has been an aggressive outreach effort designed to inform workers of their rights and support those who choose to exercise them — such as the Freedom Foundation has undertaken in Washington, Oregon and California — the results have been far more dramatic.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 31

If union leaders were , in fact, as confident as they claim that Janus couldn’t cut into their membership numbers, they wouldn’t be investing millions of dollars that might otherwise be spent advancing their leftist political agenda on their own marketing programs and legal strategies.

Looking at the raw numbers, there are three primary data sources available to evaluate changes in public-sector union membership since Janus, each with its own advantages and disadvantages: 1. Survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); 2. Union financial reports filed annually with the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS); and, 3. Government employer payroll data.

Union membership information published by BLS is based on survey results and released annually. While it provides estimates of national union membership in the public and privatesectors, it provides only a total union membership estimate for each state undifferentiated by sector.

The survey questions are also somewhat confusing. Nonetheless, because it is a government source and because it is the only comprehensive estimate of union membership nationwide, BLS information is usually considered authoritative.

And nationally, BLS data show only a slight decline in public-sector union membership in 2018.

UnionStats.com, a project of two university economists, breaks down the BLS data by state and by sector. It is the only resource attempting to measure union membership at this level.

Unfortunately, weaknesses in the underlying survey data combined with small sample sizes at this level can make the estimates unreliable.

California makes an interesting case study. BLS survey results showed an 86,000-person decline in union membership in California, from 2.5 million in 2017 to 2.4 million in 2018.

Some organizations trumpeted the decline while other observers mourned and pondered whether California’s unions were “dying.”

All attributed the decline at least in part to Janus.

However, BLS estimates provide only a single statewide union membership total including union members in both public and private-sector employment, while Janus only applied to public employees.

PAGE 32

n FREEDOM MATTERS

In other words, since the BLS numbers do not differentiate between membership levels in the public and private sectors, it’s possible the reported decline in union membership occurred entirely among private-sector employees unaffected by Janus.

That’s unlikely, but the data does not allow the possibility to be ruled out.

Additionally, the BLS estimates also show a 121,000-person decline in the total number of union-represented employees in California, from 2.7 million in 2017 to 2.6 million in 2018.

In other words, the entire decline in union membership in California could be explained by the decline in the number of union-represented employees in the state, at least according to the BLS data.

Since Janus only allowed public employees to resign union membership and had no effect on the number of unionrepresented public employees, it cannot be said to have caused the decline in union representation reported by BLS. That’s not to say public employees in California are not resigning their union membership post-Janus. It simply means BLS estimates shed little light on the extent to which this is occurring.

Overall, while helpful in measuring broad, nationwide trends, BLS data is of limited utility in evaluating how publicsector union membership has changed since Janus.

Annual reports filed by certain unions with OLMS provide more detailed information, including total membership and revenue.

However, the reports do not include the total number of employees represented by the union, making it impossible to determine the percentage of represented employees that are members.

Additionally, unions only file with OLMS if they represent at least some private-sector employees. Not only do purely public-sector unions not file such reports, but the reports mixedmembership unions file do not distinguish between public and private-sector membership.

Lastly, in some cases, information unions self-report is simply not accurate.

Still, the national affiliates of the largest public-sector unions all file such disclosures with OLMS. And the numbers do suggest some interesting trends.

• As of August 2018, just two months after the Janus ruling was issued, the National Education Association reported it lost the 88,000

nonmember agency fee-payers it had the prior year. This decline was partially offset by a slight increase in formal members. Overall, 2.4 percent fewer people financially supported the NEA in August 2018 than did in August 2017.

• The American Federation of Teachers reported that, as of June 2018, its financial supporters had increased by 4.6 percent over the prior year.

However, because its reporting period ended the same time Janus was decided, its most recent report does not reflect any changes resulting from the decision.

However, union spokespeople indicate the union lost nearly all 85,000 agency fee-payers it had at the time of the decision.

• The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees indicated in its 2018 report it lost 110,000 agency fee-payers and gained about 28,000 new members. Overall, 5.8 percent fewer employees financially supported the union in December 2018 than did in December 2017.

• As of December 2018, the Service Employees International Union reported 99,000 fewer agency fee payers and 1,000 fewer members than it had in December 2017. All told, 4.9 percent fewer people financially supported the union in 2018 than did the year prior.

• Lastly, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters reported a modest, 1,000-person decline in agency fee-payers and a massive, 110,000-person increase in membership, amounting to a net increase of 8.3 percent. While it’s possible these numbers are accurate, there are reasons to be skeptical.

• Counting the five unions listed above and assuming other unions with smaller public-sector memberships also lost some agency fee-payers, a reasonable estimate is that public-sector unions represented around 400,000 agency fee-payers at the time Janus was decided.

In some areas, however, certain local unions have filed LM-2 reports showing far steeper membership declines. For example, SEIU 503 is currently the largest labor union in Oregon and represents healthcare, non-faculty higher education workers, as well as state and local employees throughout the state.

SEIU 503 reported losing nine-tenths of its agency fee-payers after Janus and lost almost as many formal members as it did agency fee-payers. Overall, the loss of

agency fee-payers coupled with the decline in membership means the total number of employees financially supporting SEIU 503 dropped by 21.7 percent (12,463 workers), from 58,384 in September 2017 to 45,741 in September 2018.

The most accurate information about public-sector union membership comes from the payroll data of government employers’ themselves. In almost all states that permit public employee collective bargaining, employers deduct union dues from employees’ wages and transmit the funds to the appropriate union.

Consequently, it is possible to determine a union’s membership rate by dividing the number of public employees having dues withheld from their wages by the total number of union-represented employees in a given workplace.

Payroll data indicate at least some unions have experienced significant and ongoing declines in membership since Janus.

For example, state payroll data indicate the Washington Federation of State Employees — the largest union of state workers in Washington — was financially supported by 27,251 members and 4,288

agency fee payers in May 2018, the month before Janus.

As of February 2019, the union was supported by only 24,883 members.

All told, 24.3 percent of WFSE-represented state workers no longer financially support the union.

While precise, such data is not generally published and must be requested from public employers under state freedom of information laws. For that reason, the information’s dispersal among thousands of government employers makes it is less useful for trying to measure public-sector union membership by state or nationwide.

Additionally, it is important to bear in mind that Janus did not automatically open the doors for all public employees to leave their union. Internal union policies and changes made to state laws by unionsympathetic lawmakers have made it difficult for many employees to learn of their rights and successfully cancel the deduction of dues from their wages.

On the other hand, organizations like the Freedom Foundation are attempting to compensate for unions’ Janus countermeasures by conducting proactive educa-

tional campaigns to help employees understand their rights and by providing legal assistance to employees facing roadblocks.

Time will tell whether public-sector unions can develop a strategy, whether based on the strength of their value proposition or the success of coercive countermeasures, that will allow them to retain levels of membership and dues collection comparable to what they enjoyed under the old agency fee regime.

At this point, the best available early data suggests that, nationwide, publicsector unions experienced modest declines in the number of people financially supporting them in the months after Janus.

Some specific local unions on the West Coast have already seen sizeable declines in membership, however, suggesting continued membership losses may be in the future as more public employees learn about their rights and as the validity of union countermeasures get tested in court.

Questions? Comments? Contact the editor at jrhodes@freedomfoundation. com.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 33

‘Shall not

PAGE 34

n FREEDOM MATTERS

be infringed’ THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ONCE AGAIN UNDER ATTACK ... THIS TIME BY PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS WHO WANT TO OVERTURN THE US CONSTITUTION

BY EXECUTIVE ORDER

S

By GERRIT SHILMAN Director of Administration & Finance

everal weeks ago — by an odd coincidence, just about the time she discovered she was no longer the frontrunner and had, in fact, slipped to a weak fourth place in a wholly undistinguished field of Democrats vying for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination — California Sen. Kamala Harris decided her best chance to recapture her momentum was to express manifest contempt for/ ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.

During a town hall gathering televised

by CNN, Harris vowed that, as president, she would give Congress 100 days to pass a gun control measure to her liking.

If it failed, she would impose her will by executive decree.

As if on cue, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker just days later responded with a scheme to require a national gun license.

He also backed universal background checks and a full ban on so-called “assault weapons,” vowing to jail anyone who defied his order to surrender theirs.

And just for good measure, Booker — who trails even Harris in recent polls — then proceeded to declare war on the

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 35

nation’s leading gun rights advocacy group, the National Rifle Association.

“This is not thoughts and prayers,” he said. “Faith without works is dead. I’m going to bring a fight to this issue in a comprehensive manner like the NRA has never seen before.”

Not content with trashing only the Second Amendment, Booker is apparently also taking dead aim at the free speech protections in the First Amendment by vowing to silence the voices of millions of responsible gun owners.

What makes the rantings of both Harris and Booker so chilling — other than the realization they’ll be parroted, if not embellished, in due course by each of the other 150 Democrat hopefuls — is the complete absence of any reference to the amendment process.

But as unpalatable as the thought may be for gun grabbers, the right to gun ownership is unequivocally spelled out in the Constitution and cannot be repealed without two-thirds of the United States voting their approval.

That isn’t happening, and the pandering politicians know it. But rather than admit the truth to their liberal base, they pretend they have a magic wand with which to strip millions of Americans of sacred rights preceding generations have fought and died to preserve.

Thank heaven, they don’t.

James Madison, you may recall, wrote the First 10 amendments to the PAGE 36

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Constitution — better known as the Bill of Rights — at the behest of several states concerned the original document didn’t go far enough to protect individual rights.

The Second Amendment — ratified like the others in 1791— reads: “A wellregulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Almost before the ink was dry, however, critics seized on the “wellregulated militia” qualifier to insist the right of gun ownership was intended only for law enforcement or military organizations doing the bidding of government.

The truth is just the opposite.

The framers of the Bill of Rights knowingly adapted the wording of the Second Amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions. And their intent wasn’t to empower government. Rather, it was to protect individual citizens from the whims of dictators, despots and their own government.

Simply put, the Second Amendment was created just in case the politicians ignore all the other ones.

And if you think that could never happen, you’ve learned nothing from either history or current events.

Consider, for example: n In 1929, the Soviet Union abolished

public gun ownership. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. n In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and murdered. n Germany banned guns in 1938.

From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were sent to death camps. n China abolished firearms in 1935.

From 1939 to 1952, 20 million political adversaries were silenced forever. n Guatemala stopped ownership of guns in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, some 100,000 Mayan Indians were eliminated. n Uganda banned firearms in 1970.

Eventually, 300,000 Christians lost their lives because they could not defend themselves. n Cambodia disarmed its citizens in 1956, and from 1975 to 1971, more than 1 million “educated” people were rounded up and shot.

In 1996, Australians were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government.

This program cost the people of Australia $500 million dollars.

Twelve months after the confiscation, the results came in. Nationwide, Australian homicides went up 32 percent, assaults increased by 8.6 percent and armed robberies escalated by 44 percent.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms were up 300 percent.

Note that law-abiding citizens, turned their guns in; criminals did not.

Prior to the confiscation, the overall crime rate in Australia had been declining for 25 years. The most vulnerable in Australia, the disabled and elderly, experienced an even more dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults than the rest of the population.

The answer seems simple. If criminals know you can’t defend yourself, you become a victim.

Forty percent of convicted felons surveyed in the U.S said they decided not to commit a crime because they believed the intended victim was carrying a gun.

The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

More recently, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro pushed for a total gun ban in 2012, and by 2013 all gun shops in Venezuela were closed by order of the regime.

Firearms were declared the property of the government, any citizen apprehended with a gun was jailed. The result: the Venezuelan people have suffered untold human suffering under this dictator.

The economy has collapsed. food, water and medical serviced are nonexistent. The country has the second highest murder rate on the planet.

Only Maduro, his thugs and criminals have weapons. Meanwhile, citizens desperate to overthrow the Maduro regime and bring freedom back to the embattled nation are reduced to throwing rocks.

In this country, according to a study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control, approximately 2 million people in the U.S. defend themselves or a loved one with a firearm each year.

Case in point: On Father’s Day 2018, a day when men spend quality time with their families, a pastor was required to defend his loved ones — with a gun.

The armed citizen was in line at a Walmart store in Tumwater, Wash., when he heard gunshots coming from outside.

He said he recognized the sound as gunshots because he had gone through active-shooter training and was a holder of a concealed pistol license.

The troublemaker was attempting to carjack a vehicle and had shot the driver twice.

That was when the pastor started to close in on the suspect.

Once he was in range, he fired. After the gunman fell out of the car, the pastor made sure he was no longer a threat and started administering first aid.

“I carry a firearm for the same reason I carry a first aid bag,” he said, “hoping to never use them, but always being prepared, nonetheless.”

This is why nearly 70 percent of law enforcement officials support the right of

citizens to keep and bear arms. It makes their jobs easier.

The average response time for a 911 call in populated areas is 13 minutes.

In rural regions, it could be hours. If someone kicks your backdoor in at 2 a.m., would you rather have a cell phone or a firearm?

The police are first responders; an armed citizen is an instant responder.

The anti-gun lobby uses every shooting to build a case to repeal the amendment.

But the fact is, it has made America an exceptionally safe place to live — unless you’re a criminal venturing into the home of an armed citizen.

The 100 million legal gun owners who possess 1 trillion rounds of ammunition are not the problem. We are the solution.

History has proven that an armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

Unfortunately, history has also shown that our freedoms can never be taken for granted.

There have always been demagogues anxious to trade on the fears and ignorance of others. But Ben Franklin’s cryptic warning 250 years ago is no less true today: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Questions? Comments? Contact the editor at jrhodes@freedomfoundation.com.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 37

ACTIONTIMELINE ACTION TIMELINE Highlighting a few of the Freedom Foundation’s signature accomplishments over the past half year

Nov. 29 Operation Worker Freedom, launched during November by the Freedom Foundation’s California office, is a massive success. With 26 new workplace canvassers recruited and spread over 10 major California cities, the effort produced spectacular results. Freedom Foundation canvassers speak to more than 10,000 public workers and hand out in excess of 5,000 opt-out forms. Based on internal tracking data, California had a record-breaking month, dwarfing its old record by nearly 150 opt-outs.

Nov. 30 The Daily Caller website publishes an op-ed authored by Freedom Foundation VP of Operations Bob Wickers headlined, “Thanks To Unions, California’s Finances Are Collapsing.”

arguing SEIU 775 itself was a political committee because it spent millions of dollars directly on political activity.

Dec. 11 The Spokane County Board of Commissioners, after working with Freedom Foundation staff members for two years on the concept, approves a resolution declaring the county will open to the public subsequent collective bargaining sessions between the county and the unions representing its employees. Spokane is the third Washington county to adopt such a transparency measure in the past two years and, with a population of more than 500,000, by far the largest.

Dec. 20

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle hears arguments in two federal lawsuits against unions brought by the Freedom Foundation in partnership with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The plaintiffs in both cases are unionized homecare providers.

The Freedom Foundation announces it has filed two complaints with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleging pair labor unions have committed serious violations of the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), the state law governing election spending and disclosure. The first targets the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 598 (UA 598). The second involves the Amalgamated Transit Union of Washington State (ATULC).

Dec. 10

Jan. 10

A Thurston County Superior Court judge denies a request by SEIU 775 to certify a legal question so the union could appeal before the full lawsuit was heard by the trial court.

These “interlocutory”appeals are not favored, which didn’t stop 775 from trying. But the judge told the union its interpretation of the law in question had no “substantial ground” to have a difference of opinion from how the judge interpreted the law. The Freedom Foundation filed the lawsuit in January,

The Freedom Foundation announces it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a 5-4 ruling issued against it by the Washington State Supreme Court over a campaign finance violation allegedly committed by the organization in 2014.

Dec. 3

PAGE 38

n FREEDOM MATTERS

Feb. 13 The Freedom Foundation releases numbers revealing SEIU 503, Oregon’s largest labor union, has suffered one of the nation’s most dramatic

membership declines since the U.S. Supreme Court landmark ruling last summer in Janus v. AFSCME. In the wake of Janus, which eliminated mandatory union dues or fees for government employees, the Freedom Foundation originally reported SEIU 503 had lost 21 percent of its members. A more recent information request finds the loss is 26 percent.

Feb. 15 Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson tried to cover up his office’s collusion with labor unions after a think tank asked for public records about their communications, according to a lawsuit filed by the Freedom Foundation.

Feb. 18 Freedom Foundation Vice President for Communications Ashley Varner appears on One America News touting the organization’s devastating impact on public-sector union membership on the West Coast since the Janus ruling was issued last summer.

Feb. 15 A Thurston County Superior Court judge dismisses a baseless counterclaim filed

by Teamsters Local 117 in an ongoing campaign finance lawsuit brought against it by the Freedom Foundation.

Feb. 22 According to numbers posted to the Oregon State Education Association’s website during February, a third or more of the union’s dues-paying members have defected in just the eight months since Janus. Of the state’s 22,415 school employees, only 15,535 were OEA members as of February a 30 percent drop since last September that doesn’t even include those who opted out between June 27 and Sept. 1, 2018.

Leave a legacy of freedom

March 11 Four California teachers represented by the Freedom Foundation and San Francisco Attorney Harmeet Dhillon file a class-action lawsuit against the California Teachers Association alleging the union violated their First Amendment rights by continuing to deduct union dues from their wages over their repeatedly stated objections.

March 13 SEIU 503, which has lost 26 percent of its membership since the Janus ruling last summer, puts the Salem, Ore., headquarters building it has occupied for more than 30 years up for sale.

March 28 The Freedom Foundation files suit on behalf of a pair of California public education employees against their designated labor unions and the state of California alleging their request to opt out of union membership and stop paying dues was rejected because their collective bargaining agreements and state laws authorize unions to keep employees as members against their will.

March 29 Thanks to intervention by the Freedom Foundation, Cindy Ochoa, a home healthcare provider from Spokane, receives a $15,000 settlement from SEIU 775 (plus another $13,000 for the Freedom Foundation’s legal fees) when it’s discovered union operatives forged her signature on a membership card.

April 9 The Freedom Foundation files an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of a ruling issued against it in January by the Washington State Supreme Court.

The lawsuit is based on a campaign

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

finance complaint lodged in 2014 by a union front group alleging the Freedom Foundation neglected to list as a campaign expense its legal costs after representing pro bono citizen activists in three Washington cities.

MAY 7 President Trump re-tweets a Daily Caller article hailing his decision to scrap a 2014 Medicaid regulation allowing states to divert payments meant for caretakers into the pockets of unions. The reform was largely the brainchild of the Freedom Foundation, and the article mentions the organization prominently.

MAY 11 The Freedom Foundation files a lawsuit against the California Teachers Association (CTA), challenging the socalled “membership cards” the union pressured several teachers into signing without their affirmative consent as required under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. CTA’s failure to obtain the plaintiffs’ clear and informed consent before deducting dues violates the spirit of Janus v. AFSCME.

MAY 13 The Freedom Foundation learns that 11 national legal heavyweights — including the Cato Institute, the Center for Law and Justice, the Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and others — have submitted amicus briefs in support of its recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of a politically motivated 5-4 ruling issued in January by the Washington State Supreme Court.

MAY 15 Freedom Foundation Litigation Counsel Sydney Phillips argues before the Washington State Supreme Court that a 2016 ruling issued against the organization by a lower court and subsequently upheld on appeal would make a shambles of the state’s public information laws. The case deals with a 2015 records request filed by the Freedom Foundation for documents from four University of Washington employees. UW officials agreed the nearly 4,000 pages of documents were a matter of public record and were inclined to release them. The action was opposed, however, by SEIU 925 — which wasn’t even recognized as the bargaining representative of these four employees. The union soughtto prevent disclosure of public records involving one, Robert Wood, who had become involved with 925’s (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to unionize the university faculty.

MAY 16 Costa Mesa, Calif., resident Maria Quezambra files a federal lawsuit against the union representing her, alleging it forged her signature on a membership card, illegally took dues from her paycheck for over five years, then trespassed on her property against her express wishes to bully her into maintaining membership.

FREEDOM MATTERS

n PAGE 39

Non-Profit Organization U.S Postage

PAID

Olympia, WA Permit No. 462

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