Living Liberty, April 2021

Xavier Becerra unfit to serve as HHS secretary ..........

4 6

PRO Act nothing but a payoff to Biden’s union pals ....

9

Complaint sparks probe of law enforcement union ....

APRIL 2021

LIVING LIBERTY A Publication of the Freedom Foundation

Lastest appeal to SCOTUS has the potential to reverse lies in Initiative 1501

Electronic Service Requested

Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507

F

ive years ago, Washington voters were the victims of a massive fraud perpetrated by the state’s government employee unions.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to undo its damage.

Attorneys for the Freedom Foundation, a national watchdog organization specializing in the abuses of public-sector unions, on March 18 filed a request for certiorari in Boardman v. Inslee, which deals with a deceptive ballot measure that prevented thousands of home caregivers from discovering they could no longer be forced to join or pay dues to a labor union.

The complainants, including lead plaintiff Brad Boardman, are Medicaid-compensated caregivers who were prevented from contacting their peers to inform them of their legal rights.

Initiative 1501, which appeared on Washington’s November 2016 election ballot, was billed as a way to crack down on identity theft targeting seniors and vulnerable individuals. And it did include increased penalties for those found guilty of identity theft.

But buried in the fine print was a provision that would also exempt taxpayer-compensated caregivers from public disclosure laws that applied to every other government employee.

By JEFF RHODES, VP for NEWS & INFORMATION

The text of I-1501 made no attempt to explain why this latter clause was included, but supporters claimed the wording was necessary because if identity thieves had access to the contact information for those providing home-based care for their disabled loved one, it would put those they were caring for at risk, too.

In fact, the whole initiative — which Washington voters ultimately approved by a 71 percent majority — was nothing but a Trojan horse to prevent not only individuals like Boardman but organizations like the Freedom Foundation from telling caregivers the truth.

Which explains why 98 percent of 1501’s financial support came from organized labor rather than law enforcement or identity theft experts.

Washington voters in 2001 had approved an equally deceptive ballot measure that classified thousands of private individuals collecting a stipend from Medicaid for providing home-based care to a low-income, disabled loved one as government employees.

Because the state had no right-to-work protections, this meant anyone wanting to participate in the program had to agree to let a union confiscate a portion of every paycheck as dues.

In 2014, however, the Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn classified homecare providers and home-based childcare operators as “partial public employees” who were not subject to mandatory unionization.

And because the unions themselves were understandably reluctant to share this blessing with the workers, the Free See BOARDMAN Page 4

VOLUME 32, ISSUE 4

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

Publisher: Tom McCabe Editor: Jeff Rhodes

Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507

(360) 956-3482 FreedomFoundation.com

“Quote”

[2 ]

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION O F THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

CONTENTS PAGE 3

PAGE 4

LEADERSHIP MEMO

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

By MAXFORD NELSEN Reprinted from the NATIONAL REVIEW As HHS chief, Becerra would back unions instead of caregivers.

By TOM McCABE With right-to-work laws under attack on all fronts, the Left is resorting to its familiar misinformation tactics.

PAGE 5

LA FREEDOM

By TIMOTHY SNOWBALL

By TIMOTHY SNOWBALL

Brief says nonprofit groups must be allowed to protect the identity of their donors.

Supreme Court needs to clarify what it means by the term “freedom of association.”

What They Said & What They Meant

PAGES 6-7 THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

~ of the month ~

By TIMOTHY SNOWBALL Longtime UTLA member opts out, files lawsuit after union voices support for defunding police.

PAGE 8

OREGON UPDATE

By GRACE HELLAND There’s nothing heroic about taking my money and giving it to causes I don’t support.

By BEN STRAKA

“Put simply, good unions do not need the ability to force workers to pay up or be fired – and bad ones don’t deserve it. ”

Oregon AG does the right thing — when she has to.

By JASON DUDASH PRO Act has the distinct odor of a payback to Joe Biden’s union cronies.

PAGE 9

SPOTLIGHT ON CALIFORNIA

By SAM COLEMAN California law enforcement union the subject of probe.

By SAM COLEMAN Public officials could incur severe penalties for the crime of advising workers about their God-given rights.

PAGE 10

FREEDOM IN ACTION

By GLYNIS GILIO Reprinted from the DAILY WIRE

MONTANA STATE REP. CALEB HINKLE

SCOTUS ruling reduces damage requirement, making it easier for indviduals to sue government.

R-Belgrade First-term Montana House of Representatives member after his bid to pass a right-to-work law in the the state was defeated.

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

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

PAGE 11

FREEDOM IN THE NEWS

PAGE 12

ACTION TIMELINE

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

R

LEADERSHIP

With right-to-work laws under attack on all fronts, the Left is resorting to misinformation tactics ight-to-work legislation has been in the news a lot in recent weeks, and much of what you read about it is either confusing or outright wrong.

For that, you can thank the unions and their sock puppets in elected office, who’ve been on a mission to return America to the bad, old days of mandatory unions ever since 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME affirmed the practice was a violation of the First Amendment.

President Joe Biden was the nexus of much of the recent uncertainty when he weighed in during March on the potential unionization of Amazon workers in Alabama, proclaiming. “Let me be really clear: It’s not up to me to decide whether anyone should join a union. But let me be even more clear: It’s not up to an employer, either. The choice to join a union is up to the workers.

Full stop.”

As usual, Biden was anything but “really clear” — particularly in light of his oft-stated intention on the campaign trail to abolish right-to-work protections altogether. Still, it’s possible to divine his true intentions when you understand the symbiotic relationship between organized labor and the political left.

When Sleepy Joe says the choice of whether to join the union should be left up to the workers, what he really means is that it should be left up to the unions — because in his mind, there’s no question the unions speak for the workers.

Whether the workers want them to or not.

Elsewhere, two separate but fundamentally conservative states voted during March on right-to-work bills, arriving at dramatically different outcomes.

In Montana, the state House of Representatives rejected a measure that would have prohibited the requirement of belonging to a union as a condition of employment. The bill would also have done away with the requirement that private-sector collective bargaining agreements cover even workers who don’t belong to the union.

Thanks to the unions and their shills in both the media and elected office, the bill in Montana was positioned as an attack on unions. And even “moderate” Republicans seemingly bought the cover story.

Sen. Jason Small (R-Busby), for example, encouraged a no vote, saying he urged the Senate to “leave our workers alone.”

What he couldn’t or wouldn’t acknowledge, of course, is that leaving workers alone is the whole point. Right-to-work laws don’t force workers to do anything. If they want to join — or stay in — a union, they can.

But those who want out must be allowed to follow their conscience, too.

Meanwhile in Tennessee, which already has right-towork legislation on its books, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill that would enshrine it as an amendment to the state constitution.

The measure was seen by many as a response to efforts in neighboring Virginia to eliminate its right-to-work leg-

3

MEMO

LIVING LIBERTY

islation — and to the U.S. House of Representatives, which last

By TOM McCABE, CEO month approved the so-called PRO Act, a massive giveaway to Big Labor that includes abolishment of right-to-work on a national basis for private-sector workers.

As Max Nelsen, the Freedom Foundation’s labor policy director, accurately described in this month in his excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the “PRO Act would undermine employees’ ability to vote on unionization in secret-ballot elections in some cases, curtail employers’ ability to counter union messaging, shorten the union election process to deprive workers of the time to make an informed decision, and require employers to provide unions with employees’ personal contact information.”

The PRO Act is a brazen attack on individual liberty, to say nothing of the free market, and you can rest assured there will be many legal challenges to its application — with the Freedom Foundation leading the charge.

But passing it anyway simply underscores how in hock to the unions this president and Congress truly are, and why right-to-work is firmly in their crosshairs.

The new emphasis on right-to-work is further complicated by the difference “When Sleepy Joe between public- and private-sector employment. says the choice of Janus, remember, deals whether to join only with government employees, not those working a union should in the private sector, and up be left up to the to this point, the Freedom Foundation’s efforts have workers, what been directed entirely toward freeing teachers and he really means others whose paychecks are is that it should written by taxpayers from union tyranny. be left up to the You’d think the mere fact unions — that an employee doesn’t want to pay money to, or because in his be represented by, a union would be sufficient to outmind, there’s law the practice no matter no question the where he or she works. But apparently the courts don’t unions speak for see it that way — yet. the workers.”

For the Freedom Foundation, that’s likely to create even more possibilities for legal challenges as we continue to safeguard freedom and protect workers’ rights.

In any case, rest assured we’re not planning to stand idly by as all hard-won gains we’ve secured during the past few years are systematically rolled back.

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

SUPPORT THE FIGHT!

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

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

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

4

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

As HHS Secretary, Becerra would back unions rather than homecare providers

By MAXFORD NELSEN Reprinted from the NATIONAL REVIEW

D

March 3, 2021

uring Xavier Becerra’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee this week, Senator Bob Casey remarked that our view of Medicaid “tells us whom we value, whether it’s kids or seniors or people with disabilities.”

Becerra, President Joe Biden’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), assured Casey that he would “strengthen Medicaid” if confirmed. But as California attorney general, he worked to perpetuate the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid payments from homecare aides to labor unions that backed his political campaigns.

Beginning with California in the early 1990s, a handful of states allowed unions such as SEIU and AFSCME to unionize workers who provide in-home care to Medicaid-eligible adults with functional disabilities.

These caregivers assist their clients — often relatives or close personal friends — with the basic activities of daily living, and laws such as California’s required them to pay union dues, which were automatically deducted from their Medicaid payments.

Since 2014, when the Supreme Court struck down mandatory dues schemes as unconstitutional in Harris v. Quinn, unions and allied state officials, such as Becerra, have worked to make it easy to sign caregivers up for union membership and as difficult as possible for them to leave a union once they’ve joined.

Both unions representing caregivers in California have even been sued in federal court for forging caregivers’ signatures on membership forms and thus triggering nearly irrevocable, state-administered dues deductions from their Medicaid payments.

Becerra, who represents the state in both cases, is surely aware of these allegations of criminal conduct by the unions but has taken no action to address them.

As a result, about 350,000 caregivers in eight states had nearly $150 million in union dues siphoned from their Medicaid payments in 2017 alone.

Stunningly, this happened in spite of longstanding federal

BOARDMAN Continued from page 1 dom Foundation created an outreach program to contact caregivers by email, direct mail and in face-to-face meetings with paid canvassers.

But in order to inform workers, the Freedom Foundation needed their contact information. I-1501 prevented them from getting it by creating an exception to normal public

law requiring that “no payment” for Medicaid services be made to “anyone other than . . . the person or institution providing such care or service.”

During the Obama administration, HHS chastised Washington State for withholding dues from caregivers’ Medicaid payments but declined to enforce the law against the state. Instead, it created a loophole.

Despite admitting that federal law does not provide for “exceptions to the direct payment principle,” HHS adopted a regulation in 2014 allowing states to make deductions from Medicaid payments for

disclosure laws for unionized caregivers.

“Under the law, it’s possible to exempt certain government employees — like prison guards — from disclosure laws because making their contact information public could put them at risk,” said Aaron Withe, the Freedom Foundation’s national director. “But you can’t base that exemption on political ideology or financial gain, and that’s clearly what’s happened here.”

Union-sympathetic judg-

“benefits customary for employees,” arguably including union dues.

During the Trump administration, HHS rescinded the regulation, acknowledging that it was “neither explicitly nor implicitly authorized by the statute” and that diverting “a portion of [practitioners’] Medicaid payment to a union” was illegal.

As Trump’s HHS worked to rescind the Obama-era regulation, Becerra coordinated with several other attorneys general, as well as lawyers for SEIU and AFSCME, on a lawsuit to save it.

The coalition executed a “common-interest agreement” to shield much of its coordination from disclosure under government-transparency laws, though highly redacted emails confirmed its existence.

Shortly after the Obama rule was repealed in May 2019, Becerra led California, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts in a federal lawsuit to reinstate it.

When SEIU and AFSCME sought to join the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs against HHS, Becerra informed the court that he had no objection.

But when ten caregivers who couldn’t get their states to stop the unwanted union-dues deductions sought to join the lawsuit on HHS’ side, he filed a 22-page brief seeking to keep them out.

Becerra’s collusion with SEIU became even more apparent in late 2019, when HHS proposed new regulations to reinforce the statutory requirement that providers “receive and retain the full amount” of their Medicaid payments.

During the comment period on the proposed rules, Becerra submitted an opposition letter to HHS, a lengthy passage of which was copied verbatim from the comment submitted by SEIU the same day.

If confirmed, Becerra will presumably abandon HHS’ fight against the litigation he initiated as California attorney general and simply turn a blind eye to the illegal diversions as the Obama administration did.

Perhaps Becerra’s hand-in-glove coordination with powerful labor unions to preserve a lucrative, exploitative practice shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that he received nearly $200,000 in direct campaign contributions from SEIU and AFSCME affiliates during his relatively short tenure as attorney general.

Still, if Sen. Casey is correct that one’s attitude toward Medicaid reveals whom he values, Becerra’s actions make it quite clear that, as HHS secretary, he’d place the interests of labor unions, above the interests of homecare workers.

And that alone makes him unfit to run the country’s largest bureaucracy.

Maxford Nelsen is labor policy director for the Freedom Foundation.

es at the lower and Appeals Court level have consistently rejected the Freedom Foundation’s argument, concluding there is no reason to believe voters approved I-1501 for any reason other than its stated goal of crack down on ID theft.

But that’s just the point.

“The voters were duped,” Withe said. “They thought they were helping protect elderly and vulnerable Washingtonians from fraud. Instead, they ended up perpetuating a

fraud under which unions have spent decades using people who just want to care for their low-income loved ones as their unwitting cash cow.”

Boardman is the second Freedom Foundation case appealed to the Supreme Court in the past month.

The petitioners are represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Susan Stahlfeld of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP and Freedom Foundation attorney Caleb Jon Vandenbos.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

LITIGATING FREEDOM

Brief says nonprofit groups can protect donors’ identity

I

n California, the state attorney general is trying to force all charitable organizations operating in the state to turn over the names and addresses of their top financial contributors.

In response, the Freedom Foundation filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of our friends at Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas Moore Law Center — and all charitable organizations in California wanting to keep their donor information private.

In its brief, the Freedom Foundation argues that the threat facing donors whose identities are leaked to the public is more than just speculation. The campaign of harassment and intimidation faced by supporters and staff of the Freedom Foundation in recent years bears powerful evidence to this reality.

These attacks include baseless accusations of bias, attempts to ruin supporters’ businesses through personal attacks and public demonstrations, and even encouraging Freedom Foundation staff members’ neighbors to confront them at their own homes based upon nothing more than outright lies and deceptions.

Given the wider context of so-called “cancel culture,” in which individuals are publicly shamed and ostracized because of “perceived transgressions of speech and thought,” attacks on supporters and staff of the Freedom Foundation is all the more concerning and cannot be tolerated.

The Supreme Court has long recognized, beginning with a case concerning the attempted forced disclosure of NAACP members in the 1950s, that when organizations are subject to societal criticism, harassment and even possible violence, the First Amendment speech and association rights of donors trump any purported

By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL, Litigation Counsel

interest asserted by the government in obtaining the information.

In its brief, the Freedom Foundation further maintains that the leak of supposedly confidential information by the government is a regular occurrence, and there is a reasonable expectation that California will be unable to keep disclosed donor information private.

Finally, the Freedom Foundation argues the Supreme Court’s previous recognition of disclosure exceptions for organizations facing harmful or violent repercussions is just as important now as it was in the 1950s and ’60s — especially given the access to information enabled by modern technology and the Internet.

Though the context has changed, the very same liberties are at stake in Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra. California’s attempt to compel donor disclosure thus imperils both individual rights and the future of charitable organizations.

The framers of the Constitution well understood the reasons why it is often necessary to remain anonymous in the arena of political participation. While differences of opinion are inevitable (and even beneficial) in a robust and thriving democracy, shutting down people we disagree with does not lead to the promotion of good public policies or a healthy marketplace of ideas.

Instead, it leads to oppression and intellectual stagnation. We cannot give up our most cherished principles and rights in an effort to avoid controversy. The future of free speech and free association depends on it.

Supreme Counrt needs to clarify what it means by the term ‘free association’

I

n its landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that public employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to subsidize the speech of unions through dues payments or any other fees — unless they knowingly consent to waive that right.

Janus was a huge step forward for workers’ rights.

But the case left one big question on the table: If unions can no longer force workers to give them money against their will, can they still be forced to let unions speak for them?

The question turns on the legality of so-called “exclusive representation” clauses.

The term refers to the claimed right of public unions, backed up by various state laws, to “represent” the entirety of a given workforce — even if a majority of its workers do not consent to the representation.

Once a certain threshold is met (usually 30 percent voting in support), the union simply purports to speak for all employees in contract negotiations, lobbying and even political speech on controversial issues.

The result is a system that turns the First Amendment’s guarantee of free association on its head.

But a petition for review recently filed with the court, in which Freedom Foundation filed a brief in support, is a perfect opportunity to settle the constitutionality of exclusive representation laws once and for all.

In its brief, the Freedom Foundation argues that California is a textbook example of exclusive representation gone wrong. On the very day Janus was decided, California lawmakers enacted a statute designed to prevent workers from exercising their First Amendment rights affirmed in Janus.

By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL, Litigation Counsel

This law, SB 866, erects several barriers between workers and their employers.

First, the law both prevents employers from seeing the waiver required by Janus (they have to take the unions’ word for it) and prevents employees from communicating their own preferences to their employers.

Second, SB 866 provides unions with a captive audience of new workers on whom it can exert pressure to join. These meetings are required to be kept a secret, and no one but the union or vendors are allowed to attend.

Lastly, SB 866 requires employers to divulge a whole host of each employee’s sensitive personal information to the unions to use in their pressure campaigns.

All these abuses are supposedly justified by exclusive representation. “(T)he First Amendment protects freedom of association because it makes the right to express one’s views meaningful.” But more than the freedom of association is at stake given the continued reliance of unions on exclusive representation to expand their ranks and maintain their power.

Under laws like California’s SB 866, an employee’s right to the presumption that he or she has not waived their First Amendment rights is burdened, they are forced to endure undue union pressure and their personal information is even forfeit.

The Thompson petition should be granted by the Supreme Court to end the abuse of California public workers’ rights — and the rights of public workers across the country.

5

What They

&

What They What she said: “Right-towork is nothing but businesses wanting slave labor. This never benefits workers or where they live.

This is another Republican attack on workers.”

PEGGY

SIMINGTON What she Swisshome, Ore. meant: “The probFacebook post with that logic is Feb. 25, 2021 that nothing in right-to-work laws forces workers to do anything. If they’re happy in their union, they can stay and continue to support it.

But if they’re not, they can leave and take their dues with them.

The definition of slavery is forcing people to do something — which is what the unions want — instead of giving them the ability to do what they believe is best for themselves.” n n n What she said: “A right to work ... weakens a union’s structure (and) forces unions to have to cover those who are not paying dues.”

What she meant: “I take money from the unions, so I have to peddle lies like this. In fact, unions have to cover nonmembers only because their CBAs always inRAUMESH AKBARI clude ‘union Tennessee security State Senator clauses’ — Tullahoma News

which they demand so they can cry about how unfair it is. It isn’t the unrepresented workers who want it that way.

It’s the unions.”

March 8 , 2021

n n n What he said: “Workers in Montana are already free to choose if they wish to join a union or not.”

What he meant: “On paper, maybe.

But in reality, unions continue to ignore the law

— with a major assist from judges who owe their AL AKBLAD AFL-CIO Montana election to orMissoula Current ganized labor.

Feb. 17, 2021 Unions grudgingly admit workers have a right to opt out of union membership if they want, but they’re determined to make the process as difficult as possIble. Workers can choose for themselves, all right, as long as they’re willing to endure union intimidation, harrassment and lawsuits.”

6

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM case, a former student was even shot and took his money without his consent to death. After that experience, Laird even giving him notice of what was decided a police presence on campus happening or the opportunity to contest helped ensure the it.

Feb. 10, safety of both students Finally, Laird alleges that by being 2021 and teachers. forced to communicate his “opt-out” to Consequently, he UTLA, a group with a direct financial sent a letter to UTLA interest in not letting members leave, requesting it termiinstead of his actual employer, his right nate his membership to due process was also violated. hese and stop taking his Glenn Laird’s case shows that days it money. But the union UTLA’s and other unions’ strategic seems responded that, per reaction to Janus was never about enthe news his membership forcing valid contracts. Instead, it was is inunagreement, he was about doing everything it could to keep dated locked in until the members locked in against their will hen the United Supreme with increasingly dire projections about States next “window period,” seven months and keep the dues money flowing.

Court inaway. the summer of how much longer our daily livesaffirmed will According to UTLA, the First 2018 that public-sector employbe disrupted as public health officials There was just one problem: When Amendment and other constitutional can’t be forced, as asigned condition struggle to get a handle ees on the global Laird his most recent guarantees are fund a union, COVID-19 pandemic. of employment, to membership card, he took

By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL, no more than Teachers Los Angelesa(UTLA) WhenUnited the United States of Supreme marker and and othcrossed out inkblots that Litigation Counsel er unions hatched a plan to avoid Court affirmed in the summer of 2018 thecompliance. window period language can be ignored Labor leaders would continuing to that public-sector employees can’tjustify be before returning it to the when inconvededuct dues of from employees who wanted out forced, as a condition employment, union. nient. citing contracts theyofsigned before court to fund aby union, United Teachers he sent a letter to UTLA requestOncethe it was accepted, Consequently, that agreecase,(UTLA) Janusand v. AFSCME, was even decided.

Los Angeles other unions ing itcontract terminate his membership and stop taking ment became the operative Under thosecompliance. agreements, it could be argued hatched a plan to avoid his money. governing his membership. For allBut in- the union responded that, per his members were only allowed to leave the Laborthat leaders would justify continumembership agreement, he was locked in until tents and purposes, Laird should have union (and cease paying who dues) during a narrow ing to deduct dues from employees the next “window been allowed to leave the union at any period,” seven months away. annual “window period.” wanted out by citing contracts they No matter There was just one problem: When Laird time. that those agreements never much the signed before the court case,so Janus v. as mentioned signed most recent membership card, he took But not according to UTLA,his which First members were AFSCME, wasAmendment even decided.or the fact that a marker crossed out the window-period lanrefused to honor the terms of its and agreetheir constitutional rights.

Underwaiving those agreements, it could guage before returning it to the union. ment with Laird and continued to take “They signedwere the paper,” the unions asserted. be argued that members only Once it was accepted, that agreement became his money against his will for another “Case allowed to leaveclosed.” the union (and cease the operative contract governing his membereight months (even after the supposed Not so fast. paying dues) during a narrow annual ship. all intents and purposes, Laird should “window period” should haveFor occurred).

What if a matter member modified “window period.”

No that those his or have been allowed to leave the union at any time.

So membership much for honoring contracts. agreement crossed out the portion that atagreements never soand much as menBut not according to UTLA, which refused to This week, Glenn Laird decided to tempted to restrict or their Surely UTLA, tioned the First Amendment the options? fact fight honor the terms of its agreement with Laird and back. With the help of Freedom overlywere concerned of fair that members waivingwith theirthe con-enforcement to take his money against his will for Foundation, a nationalcontinued workers’ rights contracts, to leave, Laird has stitutional rights. would allow that person another organization, broughteight a fed-months (even after the supposed “Theyright? signed the paper,” the unions “window period” eral civil rights lawsuit against UTLA should have occurred).

Wrong. asserted. “Case closed.”

So much for honoring contracts. to protect his First Amendment and Glenn Laird has been a teacher in California Not so fast.

During March, Glenn Laird decided to fight other constitutional rights. years.modified For the his past What for if a 38 member or27, he’s operated back.

And to getEagle his money back.With the help of the Freedom Foundation, Rockagreement High School’s Graphics Lab,Specifically, which focuses membership and crossed a national workers’ rights organization, Laird Laird alleges that by on teaching students to graphic design, visual adout the portion that attempted rehas brought a federal civil rights lawsuit against taking his money without his affirmavertising digital marketing.

Over the course strict their options?and Surely UTLA, over- tive UTLA to protect his First Amendment and other consent as explained in Janus, of his career, Laird has taught approximately ly concerned with the enforcement of constitutional UTLA and Los Angeles Unified Schoolrights.

16,000would to 17,000 students. fair contracts, allow that person get his money back.

District are violating hisAnd FirsttoAmendLaird has also been a proud, dues-paying to leave, right?

By taking his money without his affirmative ment right to refuse to hand his money member of UTLA since he first began Wrong. aswith. directed in Janus, UTLA and Los over toteaching. fund speech heconsent disagrees even spent as UTLA’s assigned co-repreGlennHe Laird has been time a teacher in Angeles In addition, Laird alleges theUnified union School District violated Laird’s sentative on campus, helping underCalifornia for 38 years.

For the past 27, members First Amendment right not to fund speech also deprived him of his standEagle and enforce their contractual rights he’s operated Rock High School’s with which he disagrees, and refusing rights to applicable collective Graphicsunder Lab, which focuses on teach- bargaining him procedural the opportunity to contest it. agreements. ing students graphic design, visual Finally, Laird alleges that by due protwo years ago, Laird particiadvertisingUntil and digital marketing. being forced to communicate cess, besupported UTLA’s Over thepated courseand of his career, Laird has efforts his “opt-out” to UTLA, a group cause it to ensure teachers district taught approximately 16,000in to the 17,000 with a direct financial interest thousandreceived students.fair pay increases. in not letting members leave, included Laird This has also been aparticipation proud, dues instead of his actual employer, in rallies, meetings paying member of UTLA sinceand he first his right to due process was picket lines. began teaching.

He even spent time as also violated.

But when UTLA joinedon in UTLA’s assigned co-representative Glenn Laird’s case “Defund the Police” move- vicampus, the helping members understand shows that UTLA’s and ment lastcontractual spring andrights began calland enforce their other unions’ strategic ing for the removal of police from under applicable collective bargaining reaction to Janus was never campus, Laird decided enough was agreements. about enforcing valid contracts. olatUntil enough. two years ago, Laird particiInstead, it was about doing eved As a longtime teacher, witpated and supported UTLA’s effortshe to hadhis erything it could to keep members nessed numerous incidents ensure teachers in the district receivedof camlocked in against their will and free violence. one case, a former fair pay pus increases.

ThisIn included partickeep the dues money flowing. speech student even and shotpicket to death.rights ipation in rallies,was meetings According to UTLA, the After that experience, lines.

First Amendment and other Laird decided a police But when UTLA joined in the “Deconstitutional guarantees on campus fund thepresence Police” movement last are no more than inkhelped spring and beganensure callingthe for blots that can be safety of both stuthe removal of police from ignored when teachcampus, dents Laird and decided inconveers. enough. enough was nient.

As a longtime teacher, he had witnessed numerous incidents of campus violence. In one

By JASON DUDASH Reprinted from REDSTATE.com

T

Veteran California teacher, teacher, UTLA member opts out, files lawsuit after union voices support for defunding law enforcement

W

Enough is Enough

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

7

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

Easter Charade PRO Act has the distinct odor of a payback for Biden’s allies in organized labor

O

n March 9, the self-proclaimed “party of unity” drove yet another wedge into the partisan divide of our country with the passage of HR 842.

The legislation, dubbed the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, should be recognized as potentially one of the most economically damaging bills to ever be considered in the U.S. Congress.

Cloaked behind a façade of protecting American workers, the measure is nothing more than a neatly wrapped gift to Big Labor, cashing in on the tens of millions of dollars organized unions poured into Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

HR 842 is a veritable laundry list of bad policies designed to empower labor unions at the expense of individual choice.

Among other bad outcomes, the bill would: n institute heavy-handed union organizing, including impeding secret-ballot elections on unionization; n limit management’s ability to refute

By JASON DUDASH, Oregon Director

union campaign messages during organizing drives; n truncate the union election process so employees have less time to seek information for informed decision-making; and, n require employers to provide unions with employees’ personal contact information.

Perhaps the most sinister provision of the bill would be to repeal right-to-work laws in the majority of states.

Currently, 27 states have right-to-work laws that protect employees’ choice to pay union fees or not. If the PRO Act makes it to Biden’s desk and becomes law, it would require the approximately 938,000 private-sector workers currently represented by unions but choosing not to be union members to pay full union fees or risk losing their job.

Just last week, Biden addressed this very issue when speaking about an ongoing effort to unionize Amazon workers in Alabama.

Biden declared, “Let me be really clear: It’s not up to me to decide whether anyone should join a union. But let me be even more clear: It’s not up to an employer, either. The choice to join a union is up to the workers. Full stop.”

The PRO Act, however, takes that decision away from millions of Americans and puts it in the hopelessly incapable hands of Congress.

The next particularly alarming provision of the legislation concerns employee privacy.

The PRO Act would mandate that employers turn over a list of employees names and “home addresses, work locations, shifts, job classifications, and, if available to the employer, personal landline and mobile telephone numbers and work and personal email addresses” to the union within two days of the election being approved.

That’s personal, private contact information of employees, many of whom want nothing to do with a union, being handed over to labor bosses.

Richard Trumka, president of the nation’s largest union, the AFL-CIO, made clear his intentions to harass people into signing up for membership during congressional testimony last year when he said, “It is essential to be able to communicate with them … we may have to meet with them at a grocery store, anyplace else where you can get them. The most efficient place, the best place for them to be able to be able to talk is at their home setting, at their home.”

Legislation like this should be of no surprise to those of us who have been paying attention.

Unions have been grappling with historically low membership. Why would labor waste time making membership appealing so employees want to sign up, when they can simply rely on their new bought-and-paid for congressional majorities to mandate membership?

While the elements of the PRO Act do quite a bit, the one thing the bill certainly does not do is advance the interest of American workers. The PRO Act takes away workers’ rights in order to empower unions — which is exactly what the party in power wants.

8

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

There’s nothing heroic about taking my money and giving it to causes I don’t support

“W

e do the essential jobs that keep Oregon working. We’ve been called ‘heroes’ during the pandemic. We risk our lives during wildfires. We provide lifelines to families hit by the recession.”

This was the beginning paragraph of an email I received from SEIU 503.

Every time I read those words, I become more highly disgusted and disturbed, and I feel more cheated than I did before.

I became a personal support worker (PSW) for a disabled child at the age of 20, a young person working in a union-represented position for the first

By GRACE HELLAND, Paralegal

time. Thankfully, I entered the arena after the pre-Janus age, where I was not required to pay “fair share” dues to the union, who hides behind the pretense of being on the ground and actively working homecare workers but is really an organization full of bureaucrats who are in it only for the money and power, and who do absolutely nothing but play politics.

Oregon Update

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

There’s no disputing the union is a political entity. This past election cycle, SEIU 503 started doing a lot of teleconferences. It would either email us in the morning that the calls would take place, or they wouldn’t give any notice at all.

But they would also automatically dial you into the meeting. It didn’t matter if I was busy, there was no way to avoid being called into these meetings.

(I once got a call while at the dentist).

Generally, I hung up on these calls without listening to anything they had to say. I already knew the union was liberal, anti-gun and pro-abortion, which are the exact opposite of my beliefs.

But one time I actually stayed on the call because I was curious about what they were discussing and what was going on in the union, what they claimed to be doing for us. And they started telling us all to vote for Joe Biden.

Not only that, but they told us they were organizing groups of people to volunteer to campaign for Biden, encouraging us to contact them to volunteer and get started.

One time, I got an email from them entitled, “Why we need to be political.”

In it, I was told that “…(O)ur advocacy can’t stop at members’ personal interests. It means that we work with coalitions like Fair Shot to raise the minimum wage, extend paid sick leave to all workers and continue to fight for life-improving changes like more affordable housing and paid family leave.”

What does that really mean? Controlling its members isn’t enough for a union. They need more power. If they’re able to reach outside of just their members, they are better able to destroy the capitalist market and destroy the very foundations of what America stands for.

Now SEIU, to address your claim about being “heroes.” You’re not.

That’s my glory to claim, along with other frontline and essential workers.

You didn’t do anything to earn that title. You’re actually the antagonist. And thanks to the Freedom Foundation, people like me have an advocate who fights for our rights and holds you accountable for your political schemes.

Oregon AG does the right thing — when forced to

I

t isn’t often you see Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum doing the right thing, but earlier this month she filed her second set of legal objections with the state Employment Relations Board (ERB) arguing that the proposed unionization of the state’s Legislative branch is not allowed under Oregon law.

Whether coincidentally or not, the action came just days after Rosenblum received a letter from the Freedom Foundation urging her office to stand firm.

In recent weeks the Legislature has become the target of a unionization push by the Washington-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 89, which filed a petition in December asking the ERB to certify it as the “exclusive representative” for more than 100 staff assistants who work for individual Oregon state legislators.

If successful, IBEW would have become the nation’s first legislative union — although it soon became clear why the effort hasn’t caught on anywhere else.

Specifically, the unionization of legislative employees runs afoul of the

By BEN STRAKA, Policy Analyst

separation of powers doctrine of the Oregon Constitution, since it would require the ERB — an administrative arm of the executive branch — to order a completely different branch of government (the legislative) to recognize and bargain with a labor union.

To their credit, legislative officials and attorneys within Rosenblum’s Department of Justice were quick to recognize the problem and promptly filed their first set of objections with the ERB in late December.

Along with the constitutional challenge, the state brought a slew of objections to the union’s proposed “bargaining unit” and pointed out that Oregon’s collective bargaining laws also do not allow for union representation within the legislative branch.

IBEW subsequently withdrew its petition.

However, the issue was far from resolved. The union soon filed a second petition with a new description of the proposed bargaining unit — and although it solved virtually none of the constitution-

al or legal problems identified by the state’s attorneys, there appeared to be no guarantee that Rosenblum’s office would take any further action.

Fortunately, the Freedom Foundation stood ready and willing to take action of its own.

A letter, sent on Jan. 29, emphasized the DOJ’s obligation to resolve its original questions of constitutionality and legality — and promised that if it didn’t, the Freedom Foundation would.

Speaking of which, that option is still on the table. Although the DOJ filed its second round of objections on Feb. 4 — shortly after receiving the Freedom Foundation’s letter and on the last day before the ERB’s deadline — the most recent arguments focus entirely on the state’s collective bargaining laws rather than the Oregon Constitution.

That’s not necessarily a problem since, as the Freedom Foundation’s letter pointed out, the issue of constitutionality is better suited for the courts.

But either way, the issue is far from settled. Democratic lawmakers in the Oregon Legislature have now introduced a workaround bill designed to open up a legal path to the unionization, and time will tell whether the DOJ is committed to seeing its legal challenge through to the end.

Rest assured, we’ll be watching closely — and, when necessary, taking action — to ensure it doesn’t happen.

LIVING LIBERTY

California law enforcement union the subject of probe

D

uring February, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) — the governmental body which regulates political spending in California — informed us it would be investigating the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA).

The original campaign finance complaint, filed by the Freedom Foundaiton nearly six weeks ago, alleges hundreds of thousands of dollars in political spending were improperly reported over multiple years and that CSLEA has created a dark-money network by continually failing to report the names of its contributors.

You may recognize CSLEA as the parent union for the more than 100 lifeguards the Freedom Foundation helped cease their dues deduction — and the dozens more we filed litigation on behalf of to void their unconstitutional window periods.

While political spending isn’t illegal

in California, hiding the donor’s true identity is.

CSLEA is supposed to report the first and last names, street address, occupation and employer for each yearly contributor giving more than $100.

Instead, CSLEA simply wrote in, “From CSLEA as intermediary for individuals under $100,” when making political action committee (PAC) donations on behalf of the union.

How do we know that CSLEA collects more than $100 per person every year?

Because the union told us so.

On the CSLEA’s own website, it clearly states that each member has $28 per month taken automatically for political spending and that members must request CSLEA not use this for politics in order for that money to instead be sent to its general account.

That is, its website used

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

By SAMUEL COLEMAN, Outreach Director

to say this. The link, which was used in a previous blog post about CSLEA, has mysteriously stopped working.

Suspicious.

What’s also suspicious is the fact that CSLEA created five different PACs with the hope of spreading out the $336 yearly in political expenditures it makes per member, nearly $1.7 million in total, to various political enterprises across the state.

Even more strange is the reality that two of these PACs aren’t even registered with the IRS and only seem to exist on paper.

We couldn’t be happier that FPPC has decided to investigate what is clearly a sketchy union.

We will continue to monitor campaign finance violations and protect public employees from unions that only view them as an easy way to buy political influence.

FIRST WORD ....

SOUNDS LIKE BITES? KITES? ... MITES? .. SITES?

MIGHTS? ... NIGHTS? ... LIGHTS? .

Spotlight on

California

Public officials could incur severe penalties for the crime of advising workers about their God-given rights

E

very American has the right to speak their mind without fear of being punished by the government. This protection applies to all of us, no matter our position in society. School children, public workers, and yes, even public officials.

The ability of public officials to speak their minds on important issues is particularly important.

If officials are unable to voice their opinions on proposed public policies (like reigning in massive budget shortfalls due to the operation of public-sector unions), the voters are unable to exercise democratic oversight and make their own preferences known.

So, in the majority of the United States, the free speech rights of officials are recognized and protected.

Unless you live in California.

In this state, the government has made it illegal for public officials to give its employees any information about their own constitutional rights. Not only does this “gag order,” make little sense, but it violates the First Amendment.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Janus v. AFSCME that public-sector workers have a constitutional right not to give any money to a union.

By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL, Litigation Counsel

And that if they decide to do so, they are waiving this right, and that waiver must be clearly demonstrated to their employer.

The Janus case overturned 40 years of precedent allowing workers’ pay to be skimmed by the unions and was hailed as a victory for workers’ rights.

But unfortunately for California workers, on the very day that Janus was decided, Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed SB 866 into law. The timing of this bill was no coincidence. SB 866 was specifically designed to prevent employees from knowing about their rights.

Under this gag order, public employers telling employees anything which could “deter or discourage” them from becoming or staying union members (like telling them about their constitutional rights affirmed in Janus), could be accused of a labor violation, and hauled in front of PERB. As a result, public officials across the state must bite their tongues out of fear that one verbal misstep could land them

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

in legal hot water.

But all is not yet lost. Because the Gag Order distinguishes between one kind of speech it likes (pro-union) and one kind of speech it doesn’t (Janus), it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which forbids the government from making this kind of distinction.

Further, because it discourages speech that public officials would otherwise want to make, it is also unconstitutional.

Hence, the legal grounds for challenging the gag order are strong. What is missing is a group of public officials in California with the guts to push back against this blatant tyranny.

Unless they are willing to fight for the First Amendment, hundreds of thousands of public workers will remain in the dark about their constitutional rights, and the unions in California will continue to reap a windfall in money to be used in pushing leftist politics.

The choice is no choice at all.

9

10

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

FREEDOM in ACTION

Emails: “I called to say thank you. I don’t know if you remember, but you helped me last week.

I just got my check and the deduction is gone. If it hadn’t been for your organization, I wouldn’t have been the beneficiary of keeping my money. I’m sure your recommendations and your letter being professionally made streamlined my effort to get the union to stop the deduction.”

– CHARLES n

n

n

“You all are doing great work!!

Keep on snipping the money flow of forced union dues so we can get back to a ‘normal’ America that was built from the vision of our Founding Fathers!”

– SANDRA n

n

n

“Thank you for following up regarding my election to opt out of union dues. The Freedom Foundation website did assist me in generating a letter to opt out, and it was so easy to access and resulted in success.”

– RICHARD n

n

n

“Happy to report that … I received a letter and a refund check from the union. Thanks for all your help!”

– ARTURO “Thank you again and again for helping me with the union harassment that was so scary and coming my way after I shared with staff that the union was taking extra money from their checks to pay for flowers and political influence. Ironically, I am 80 percent Democratic, but I want to allow my money to select the candidate I choose – not them! And feel people with less money should be able to use that money (their money) for daycare, medical bills or anything they want.”

– PATRICIA

SCOTUS makes it easier for citizens to sue government

By GLYNIS GILIO Reprinted from the RED STATE March 11, 2021

T

his week, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-1 opinion in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski — a significant win for constitutional liberty. The opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that nominal damages, or damages amounting to a single dollar, are enough to prove standing for a federal court hear their case.

Uzuegbunam is an important victory for individual rights in the United States, but it is especially beneficial for public interest legal organizations like the Freedom Foundation whose job it is to fight for Americans’ constitutional liberties in court.

The government can’t violate your rights then turn around and say you can’t sue it because you’ve suffered no monetary damages, because the injury stopped or because you no longer work for it or attend its schools.

In many Freedom Foundation cases, for example, unions attempt to “moot” lawsuits against themselves by eventually granting a disgruntled member his or her release, or by paying back dues that were illegally collected.

Thereafter, the worker has to prove how they still have a redressable claim. Many courts accept this logic to avoid hearing claims on the merits of the case.

Uzuegbunam provides the Freedom Foundation, and countless other organizations, with an avenue to make the government admit it violated someone’s constitutional rights, even if it is through payment of one dollar.

The case itself concerned Chike Uzuegbunam, a college student at Georgia Gwinnet College, who wanted to share his Christian faith with his fellow students only to be stopped by campus police who said he needed a permit to distribute religious materials outside of two dedicated campus zones.

Even after he obtained the permit, Uzuegbunam was once more silenced by campus police because it led to complaints. Again, Uzuegbunam complied.

But he sued the college, claiming its policies violated his First Amendment rights.

The lower court told Uzuegbunam the violation of his constitutional rights didn’t matter because he couldn’t prove he suffered any monetary damages. The college also quickly decided to change its speech-zone policy rather than defend it against Uzuegbunam’s claims.

As a result of policy change, in combination with the lack of monetary damages, lower courts ruled that Uzuegbunam had no case.

The college tried to wash its hands of the issue and get away with violating his constitutional liberties.

But Thomas, writing for the majority, concluded that nominal damages are sufficient for a court to remedy the violation of Uzuegbunam’s constitutional rights. Relying in large part on history, Thomas cited the fact that nominal damages historically could provide prospective relief .

He noted that, although common law courts initially required proof of actual monetary damages, later courts reasoned that every legal injury necessarily causes damage in one form or another, and this approach was adopted both before and after the ratification of the Constitution.

According to the ruling, it’s undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a violation of his constitutional rights — irrespective of whether it caused him economic harm — when Georgia Gwinnet enforced its speech policies against him by silencing his voice and his beliefs.

Chief Justice Roberts was the only dissenter.

He resisted the court’s championing of Uzuegbunam’s First Amendment right because he feared that the reasoning would reduce the role of judges to mere “advice columnists.”

He sees the decision as a risk of a major expansion of the judicial role. In his mind, courts should only review the legality of policies and actions after someone has proven they actually have a real injury that needs remedying.

Roberts’ rationale focuses more on the impact on judges than the question of preserving constitutional liberties when they’re violated by the government.

Uzuegbunam is a game-changer for public interest legal organizations all across the country.

Successfully demonstrating standing is one of the primary challenges these organizations face, which results in countless constitutional arguments left unheard on the merits.

Constitutional liberties are priceless. When the government violates a person’s rights, it should be held accountable for its actions, no matter how large, small or beyond calculation they may be.

There is no price tag on the First Amendment.

The court’s opinion in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski reaffirms what the Freedom Foundation and so many other organizations already know: People suffer in more than just economic ways when the government violates their rights, and now they will no longer be able to get away with it.

Glynis Gilio is a litigation fellow with the Freedom Foundation.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

11

FREEDOM in the NEWS IN PRINT

Feb. 17, 2021

ON

ONLINE

Feb. 23, 2021

‘Excise tax’ measures proposed in Washington “The Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit think tank with offices in Washington, stated lawmakers have called it an ‘excise tax’ knowing that targeted, unequal income/property taxes are subject to legal challenge.‘While the Freedom Foundation again stands ready to challenge any misguided and unconstitutional new tax in court if passed by the Legislature, it’s always preferable that bad ideas simply never become law,” wrote Maxford Nelsen, director of labor policy.”

Divided Washington Supreme Court blocks Freedom Foundation political contribution case against unions “A narrowly divided Washington Supreme Court on Thursday threw out several legal challenges filed by a conservative think tank against state employee unions alleging violations of campaign finance laws. The 5-4 opinion ruled that challenges brought by the Freedom Foundation against Teamsters Local 117, Service Employees International Union 775 and Gov. Jay Inslee were not timely filed under Washington state law.”

ON AIR

March 15, 2021

Supporters, critics continue to battle over proposed capital gains tax in Washington “Opponents included Freedom Foundation Director of Labor Policy Maxford Nelsen, who said. ‘We believe this capital gains tax is unnecessary, punitive, and unconstitutional.’ Nelsen argued the tax on investment earnings should be considered a tax on income, something that is unconstitutional in the state.”

IN PRINT

Feb. 24, 2021

Klamath Falls businesses inspected, fined by OSHA “Casey’s Restaurant has already been fined $8,900 in December for serving dine-in food and drinks while it was prohibited by the governor’s executive order. Casey’s owners have pledged to appeal fines, with the backing of conservative nonprofit the Freedom Foundation, and to continue serving customers at normal capacity despite state restrictions.”

The fuse is lit.

In February, the Freedom Foundation asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in Belgau v. Inslee. If the court agrees to take the case and votes just as it did three years ago in Janus v. AFSCME, public-sector unions could conceivably have no members and no money overnight.

And your support will have made it all possible.

12

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

ACTION TIMELINE SPOTLIGHTING SOME OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION’S NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PAST MONTH March 1 The Freedom Foundation submits an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas Moore Law Center challenging efforts by the Califiornia state attorney general to force all charitable organizations operating in the state to turn over the names and addresses of their top financial contributors. In its brief, the Freedom Foundation argues that the threat facing donors whose identities are leaked to the public is more than just speculation. The campaign of harassment and intimidation faced by supporters and staff of the Freedom Foundation in recent years bears powerful evidence to this reality.

March 1 An article authored by Freedom Foundation legal fellow Glynis Gilio is published on the RedState. com website. Headlined “Liberty Has No Price Tag: U.S. Supreme Court Recognizes the Value of Free Speech Rights,” the article chronicles the case of Uzuegbunam v.

Preczewski, in which a student at Georgia Gwinnett College was

By the Numbers

March was another a good month for public employee opt outs. Over a period of two days, March 9 and 10, 229 government employees on the west coast gained their freedom by leaving their respective unions. repeatedly denied his First Amendment right to distribute religious materials on campus — even after obtaining a permit. The student subsequently sued, but his case was dismissed because he had suffered no financial damage. The Supreme Court, however, lowered the damage threshold, allowing the suit to proceed. The outcome is significant to the Freedom Foundation because its lawsuits against unions have often been dismissed on the same basis.

March 12 An op-ed authored by Freedom

Foundation Labor Policy Director Maxford Nelsen is published by the Wall Street Journal. Headlined, “Unions and Democrats attack the right to work,” the piece spotlights the so-called PRO Act, passed earlier in the week by the U.S. House of Representatives, as little more than a payback to the unions that pumped millions into Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

March 16 The Freedom Foundation files suit on behalf of Glenn Laird, a longtime California teacher who broke ranks with his union when it included defunding law enforcement among its demands in return for returning to the classroom during the COVID outbreak. The union denied his request to leave, saying he signed a membership agreement that included language limiting opt-outs to a two-week window every year. Laird, however, has a copy of the contract with that wording blacked out with a felt pen.

March 18 The Freedom Foundation appeals Boardman v. Inslee to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves Initiative 1501, a union-financed ballot measure passed in 2016 by Washington state voters, that purported to toughen

the state’s laws against identity thieves who prey on seniors and vulnerable individuals. In fact, the initiative’s real purpose was to exempt the contact information for union-represented homecare providers from the public disclosure laws that apply to every other government employee, preventing fellow caregivers and organizations like the Freedom Foundation from informing them of their rights to leave the union without penalty.

March 19 The Freedom Foundation announces that a total of nine amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs — authored by elected officials, public policy organizations and the attorneys general for 13 U.S. states have been submitted in suport of its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Belgau v. Inslee. The case argues that virtually every public-sector union contract in the nation should be voided because the workers weren’t advised of their rights to decline union participation.

March 19 Glenn Laird, the California teacher represented by the Freedom Foundation in his suit against his union for denying his opt-out (see above), appears on the Fox News’ show Fox and Friends.

You can do something today to impact the next generation.

Keep fighting for freedom by creating a legacy gift to the Freedom Foundation.

Have questions? We can help.

Call us at (360)956-3482. Ask for Mark.