4
LIVING LIBERTY
|
A P U B LICAT ION O F T HE FR EED OM FOUNDAT ION
THE CASE FOR FREEDOM
E
very American has the right to speak his or her 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 existence 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 California, the government has made it illegal for public officials to give their 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. If they decide to anyway, they’re waiving this right, and that waiver must be clearly demonstrated to their employer. Janus 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 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 the measure, public employers telling employees anything that could “deter or discourage” them from becoming or staying union members (like telling them about their constitutional rights, for example), 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
California continues its assault on free speech
By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL, Litigation Counsel
verbal misstep could land them 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 (the truth), 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’s missing is a group of public officials in California with the guts to push back on this blatant tyranny. Unless they’re 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.
Don’t let them kid you — unions love ‘free riders’
W
henever the Freedom Foundation lets public employees know they no longer have to be a member of a union — and pay dues for the “privilege” — our friends the government unions inevitably wail about “free riders.” That’s a slang expression for someone getting something they’re not paying for — in this case union representation. The government unions insist it’s unfair they be required to provide a free service. And you know what? In some ways, they’re right. The only question is who the practice is unfair to. That’s why the Freedom Foundation is pleased to support HB 3119, a newly introduced bill in the Oregon Legislature. The measure, authored by state Rep. Mike Nearman (R-Independence) would end the alleged burden of “free riders” by freeing unions from the responsibility of speaking for even nonmembers.
employees is based on merit: By BEN STRAKA, Policy Analyst
Rather than the current arrangement, in which all employees are “represented,” the bill proposes a system in which there are “union” and “independent” employees. According to the wording: “If an independent employee does not pay union dues or any other assessment to defray the cost of a labor organization’s services…(t)he labor organization is not required to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the independent employee or otherwise represent the independent employee in the independent employee’s employment relations with the public employer.” As you might expect, the labor arrangement with independent
“A public employer shall determine the wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of an independent employee based on the independent employee’s education, experience, training, skills and performance.” Somewhat ironically, one shouldn’t expect Oregon’s Democrat-dominated legislature to give the bill a hearing. Could it be the responsibility for representing everyone in a given bargaining group — members and nonmembers alike — isn’t the burden the unions claim it is? If passed, the bill would create a new dynamic that wouldn’t be patterned after the labor vs. management model, but a partnership between labor and management based on what the employee could offer and what management needed. This alone could increase productivity and morale.
But despite what they may say, a partnership is the last thing unions want. Recent history shows that government unions have enough allies in the Legislature to amend the state’s collective bargaining laws when it suits them — meaning they would likely have no problem shedding the statutory “burden” of representing nonmembers themselves. But you know what? They’ve never tried. That’s because these workers aren’t free riders. Under a union protection clause, they’re “forced” riders. The best thing about HB 3119 is that it exposes the essence — and problems — of socialism, which is undeniably what unions are based on. In the same way a Marxist economy builds walls, so does the union workforce need to build walls — though in this case the wall is the exclusive representation clause.
