May 2021 Living Liberty pages

Unions hemorrhaging members thanks to Janus .......

LIVING LIBERTY

4 5

Complaint accuses union of doxing nonmembers ......

9

SEIU 503 accused of racketeering in new lawsuit .......

MAY 2021

A Publication of the Freedom Foundation

FF’s California personal injury suit against LA district, teachers’ union goes viral

Electronic Service Requested

Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507

T

he Freedom Foundation has generated headlines all over the country for its novel personal injury lawsuit against the Los Angeles school district and the union representing its teachers for the damages inflicted on students still denied in-class learning because of the COVID pandemic.

The case, itself, however, hit a bump in the road when Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel’s on April 8 denied a temporary restraining order that would have prevented the union from interfering in plans to reinstate in-class education.

The ruling, based on Strobel’s assumption that students would be returning to school the following Monday anyway, might have been logical under normal circumstances.

Unfortunately, the distance-learning requirements adopted because of widespread COVID fears aren’t a normal circumstance, and UTLA isn’t a normal defendant.

First, the schools may have re-opened in some respects, there’s no way the current arrangement could be characterized as anything resembling a normal education experience.

According to the LA Times: At the elementary level, students would attend five days a week in either

By JEFF RHODES, VP for NEWS & INFORMATION

a morning or early-afternoon session.

The staggered schedule would allow for smaller classes, in keeping with state recommendations to keep students at least six feet apart. Middle and high schools would resume with even starker changes. Students would attend two days a week on a staggered schedule.

But instead of moving from class to class, students would remain in their advisory classroom — similar to a homeroom base — for the full day.

From their advisory class, students would carry out distance learning essentially as they are doing now; they would be trading online-from-home for onlinefrom-a-classroom under the supervision of a teacher.

Students would then “move” from class to class online — as they are doing now at home. Advisory teachers would have their own schedule of classes — which they would conduct from school, but not necessarily to the students in front of them. To avoid mutual distraction, students would be provided with noise-canceling headsets.

During one period a day the headsets would come off, and the teacher and students would work together on assignments and activities that are not part of the core academic work.

These activities would include a focus on students’ social and emotional well-being.

For the most part, however, secondary students will not have in-person instruction even when they are on campus. (Emphasis added.)

Sounds about as conducive to learning See LA LAWSUIT Page 11

VOLUME 32, ISSUE 5

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” ~ of the month ~

[2 ]

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION O F THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

CONTENTS PAGE 3 LEADERSHIP MEMO

By TOM McCABE As long as this state and too many others have one-party government, the fix will be in.

PAGE 5

PAGE 4 THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

By JACK FOWLER Reprinted from the NATIONAL REVIEW Public-sector unions are hemorrhaging members. Thank you, Janus ruling.

LITIGATING FREEDOM

By ASHLEY VARNER

By MAXFORD NELSEN

Freedom Foundation appeal to SCOTUS attracts some impressive supporters.

PERC complaint filed against transit union for publishing names of its nonmembers.

What They Said & What They Meant

PAGES 6-7 THE CASE FOR FREEDOM Freedom Foundation lawsuit with California teacher suing his own union over demand to defund law enforcement earns banner headlines all around the country.

PAGE 8

OREGON UPDATE

By JEFF RHODES SEIU faces rackteering charges for wire fraud, forged signatures.

By SHELLA SADOVNIK Randi Weingarten’s anti-Semitic diatribe exposes the utter depravity of her character.

PAGE 9

SPOTLIGHT ON CALIFORNIA

By AARON WITHE Illegals learning in person while San Diego kids stay home.

“The teacher’s union has become the biggest obstacle to upward mobility and to breaking the cycle of poverty for poor and minority students.”

By BEN STRAKA Public-sector unions aren’t fooling anyone about their true priorities.

By KATE IRBY Reprinted from the SACRAMENTO BEE PRO Act would strengthen unions. What would that mean for California?

PAGE 10

FREEDOM IN ACTION

By SHELLA SADOVNIK Reprinted from the ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

ILLINOIS STATE REP. BLAINE WILHOUR R-Effingham Quoted in Andy Kessler’s March 28 column in the Wall Street Journal.

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

Parents have had enough.

It’s time to re-open schools.

PAGE 12

ACTION TIMELINE

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

As long as this state — and too many others — have one-party

government, the fix will be in

M

y good friend Jim Johnson, the former Washington State Supreme Court justice, used to remark, “The fix is in,” when describing how the three branches of government conspire to harass and defeat conservatives.

The Freedom Foundation is certainly no stranger to the phenomenon. In one-party states like Washington, Oregon and California, the legislature, governor and judiciary often join forces to subvert our best efforts.

Consider two recent examples: At the request of government unions, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued the Freedom Foundation for failure to report political expenditures incurred regarding our opposition in 2017 of the city of Olympia’s plan to impose an income tax.

As our mission statement proclaims, the Freedom Foundation was formed in 1991 to promote free markets and limited, accountable government. And because income taxes are expressly prohibited under Washington’s constitution and had been rejected numerous times by state residents, we felt the proposal was neither limited nor accountable.

Consequently, Freedom Foundation staff members testified against it during a city council meeting.

The organization also submitted a letter to the editor on the subject, and one of our attorneys mailed a reminder to Olympia City Council members that Washington state laws prohibit income taxes.

None of this was political because we were neither raising money nor soliciting votes. Freedom Foundation staff members were merely exercising their First Amendment right of free speech.

But the unions and their lickspittles in government — I’m looking at you, Bob Ferguson — long for an income tax so they can grow government. Therefore, any organization that dares stand up against the tax must be silenced.

Because this was the fourth lawsuit filed against us by the AG, we know the drill.

In a normal world, where the three branches of government operated independently, the Freedom Foundation would have a good chance of convincing a judge to throw out the case. But not here, where the fix is in.

The AG’s office told our attorney that if the Freedom Foundation pursued the case in court we would lose and be forced to pay the AG’s outlandish legal fees because the judges haven’t ruled against the AG for years.

In every case where AG demanded legal fees, the presiding judge agreed.

In total, the AG said the Freedom Foundation should have reported $400 of staff time on the income tax issue. But “Sideshow Bob” Ferguson demanded $20,000 in fines, penalties and fees — which he guaranteed he would receive from a compliant judge who was in on the fix.

In a second case, Washington’s Public Records Act allows

3

MEMO

|

private citizens to petition the courts when they believe the AG

By TOM McCABE, President has not done a sufficient job in pursuing people or groups illegally concealing political donations.

These citizen activists provide another level of accountability and scrutiny. For years, the Left used this provision of the law to intimidate conservative groups into “compliance.” I know, because in a previous job I was the target of a “private citizen” who continually used this provision of the law to extract money from my organization.

When I came to the Freedom Foundation in 2015, I asked our staff to utilize this provision of the law to hold unions accountable.

But when Labor Policy Director Max Nelsen, one of the Freedom Foundation’s brilliant happy warriors, uncovered unions that were not reporting millions of dollars spent on politics, Ferguson imposed fines amounting to only pennies on the dollar.

Max and the Freedom Foundation legal team petitioned the courts to enforce the law fairly, but the fix was in.

This past March, the state Supreme Court ultimately ruled that conservatives don’t have the right to use the law against union corruption.

So how can we fix the fix?

Here are a few suggestions.

1: Expose it. It’s essential to expose the corrupt fix between the branches of government, as I’ve done here. Hopefully, readers of Living Liberty will forward these examples to legislators and the media.

2. Change the judges.

Judges are elected in west coast states, and the incumbents who are part of the fix need to be thrown out of office. I have some energy for this project. Stay tuned.

3. Change the Legislature: One-party control of the Legislature has allowed corruption to fester. When power changes hands (as it probably will in 2022), the new majority needs to end the fix.

They can do this by cutting off funding to the AG, the Public Disclosure Commission and other government agencies that are in on the fix.

LEADERSHIP

LIVING LIBERTY

“In a normal world, where the three branches of government operated independently, the Freedom Foundation would have a good chance of convincing a judge to throw out the case. But not here, where the fix is in.”

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

Public-sector unions are hemorrhaging members.

Thank you, Janus ruling

By JACK FOWLER Reprinted from the NATIONAL REVIEW

D

March 25, 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.”

These may not seem like rough times for public-sector unions, but do not be fooled.

True: Not letting a crisis go to waste, national and big-city teachers’ operations such as the NEA and AFT — which fund and wield immense control in the Democratic Party at all levels — have fought diligently and successfully to keep America’s schools closed, and those government workers known as teachers at home. Far from the pandemic’s heroic front lines, there are many a “W” being taken in living rooms in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, and numerous other municipalities, places where monotonous “for the children” claptrap has disappeared, courtesy of the bald-faced contempt for in-classroom education.

Also true: News cycles, even persistent ones, aside, America’s public-sector unions — whose many millions in annual compulsory dues, often dunned from the paychecks of those averse to progressive and Leftist agendas, are and for decades have been the lifeblood of Democratic politics — and those who’ve grown accustomed to their largesse are in for a hell of a time.

They are hemorrhaging members.

The reason is largely due to the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, in which an irked Illinois government worker, Mark Janus sued to protect his First Amendment rights, which, if protected, would mean an end to the practice of public employees being forced to pay dues to AFSCME, SEIU, AFT, NEA, and other union bigfoots that used the reliable stream of plentiful boodle to play and pay for — and indeed rule — partisan politics at national, state, and local levels.

And Mark Janus’s rights were protected, and then some: In a historic majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito safeguarded not only the workers’ free-speech rights in theory, but in practice, overturning the long-established practices that had guaranteed a flowing cash spigot for union coffers, while narrowing the wiggle room that displeased bosses would find quite tight for navigating: States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them.

Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.

Across the country, conservative and pro-liberty organizations immediately grasped the consequence of the Janus affirmative-consent requirement — also known as “opt in” and “opt out,” depending on the spin — and began or expanded operations that sought to educate public-union workers on their rights.

These, if exercised by refusing to give af

firmative consent, would mean clear consciences and — over the course of a typical dues-paying career — many more thousands of dollars kept in their wallets and unavailable for unions to use as capital for increasingly leftist agendas and candidates.

These education efforts, which use an array of marketing techniques ranging from knocking on doors to hosting webinars to launching Janus-follow-up lawsuits (intimidation and the denial of rights is alive and well), have had an immediate impact on union membership in many states, and the flow of cash into the union buckets.

An excellent example is found in Oregon, where the fall-off in union dues-paying has been dramatic. In the 2016 election cycle, the SEIU 503 (consisting of home-health providers and state employees) dropped $6.1 million in political spending, a tad more than the $6 million spent by the Oregon Education Association.

The 2020 cycle’s figures are radically reduced: The SEIU expenditures were down to $2.5 million, while the teachers’ union proved a shadow of its former self, with an expenditure of only $686,000. The state’s AFSCME, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and school-employees union (OSEA) all saw similar, dramatic declines in accessible cash with which to play politics.

Actually, the Freedom Foundation, which has been battling for workers’ First Amendment rights, particularly in the Northwest, commenced its fights in Oregon and elsewhere before Janus was handed down, using instead that verdict’s legal harbinger, Harris v. Quinn, to take a bite out of Big Labor political antics.

Harris was the important 2014 SCOTUS case concerning Illinois home-service healthcare providers. A potential major source of new dues-revenue, many felt strong-armed into government-employee status via a Big Labor-contrived executive order (issued in 2003 by then-governor Rod Blagojevich).

Pamela Harris — paid to take care of her son, then hit with mandatory SEIU dues — didn’t like that.

She sued. She won.

Despite this win, victory in these types of cases was elusive in lower courts. But then came SCOTUS, which overturned their verdicts, holding that “The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee” from personal-care providers “who do not want to join or support the union.”

Justice Alito’s 5–4 opinion (a precursor to his definitive Janus decision) was narrow,

but nevertheless began the dismantling of the High Court’s prevailing Abood precedent, a 1977 ruling that had been a bankrolling godsend to Big Labor.

The Freedom Foundation’s efforts to educate workers on their rights have realized significant results: SEIU 503 has seen 40 percent of its home-health providers opt out of dues and agency fees.

Along with 503’s state-employee contingent (33-percent drop), OSEA (36 percent), AFT (35 percent), and AFSCME (19 percent), the bottom-line hit to bank accounts of the Beaver State’s public-employee unions has been $15.3 million.

Maxford Nelsen, the Freedom Foundation’s director of labor policy, says its Opt Out Today successes have been accomplished by a mix of outreach efforts: “They consist of email, postal mail, doorbelling, leafletting outside government offices, text messaging, billboards, radio ads and digital advertisements.”

All that hit a wall in 2020. “COVID-19 forced us to pause our in-person outreach methods,” Nelsen said, “though we’re looking forward to being able to restart those soon. It also forced us to get more creative.”

For example, the organization “recently started hosting webinars” for public-school teachers in Washington State “to learn more about alternatives to traditional union membership/representation.”

The Freedom Foundation’s efforts in its Washington home have been as successful as in neighboring Oregon.

The big kahuna of Big Labor in the Evergreen State is the Washington Federation of State Employees/AFSCME Council 28 (a.k.a “WFSE”).

A year after Janus was rendered, Nelsen says the data shows dues- and fee-paying membership fell a staggering 27.4 percent, from 43,290 to 31,447.

Using state payroll information obtained through FOIA requests, the Freedom Foundation declared that as of this past January, the WFSE membership drop number now stands at 32.6 percent.

Smaller-fry unions, such as Washington Public Employees Association, a mix of workers from state agencies and community colleges, have seen similar declines. Again, on the heels of Janus, the dues-paying rolls had fallen 25 percent.

Nelsen says that number is now closer to 30 percent.

The fight continues, at the doorbells, and in the courts.

A final, forthcoming installment of this little series will pay attention to some important Janus-spawned legal battles now working their way through the system.

You’ve been warned.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

LITIGATING FREEDOM

Freedom Foundation appeal attracts impressive backers

T

he Freedom Foundation’s recent appeal of a potentially game-changing labor reform lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court has attracted some impressive backing.

At last count, a total of six amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs had been submitted by nine different groups composed of elected officials, public policy organizations, individuals and the attorneys general for 13 U.S. states.

The case, Belgau v. Inslee, argues that the court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME does more than just outlaw mandatory union membership, dues or fees for public employees.

It also includes language requiring unions to prove workers have been advised of their newly affirmed rights and that they have knowingly agreed to waive them before any dues can be deducted from their wages.

If the court agrees to hear the appeal, which was filed in February, it has the potential to void virtually every public-sector union contract in the country — and deny the unions billions in dues money — with the stroke of a pen.

Janus only damaged government employee unions. Belgau is a kill shot.

Rather than employees having to fight their way to freedom, unions will have to find a way to coax millions of workers to come back voluntarily.”

The plaintiffs in the case are all Washington public employees whose request to opt out was denied by their union.

Lower court judges have been reluctant to interpret Janus so broadly, but the language of the ruling is unambiguous — and the Supreme

By ASHLEY VARNER VP for Communications

Court has an even stronger conservative majority now than in 2018.

The list of organizations submitting or joining briefs agreeing with the Freedom Foundation and its plaintiffs includes: n the Citizen Action Defense Fund, on behalf of a coalition of two serving Washington state senators and six members of the Washington State House of Representatives; n the National Right-to-Work Legal Defense Foundation; n the Chicago-based Liberty Justice Center; n the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute; n the Landmark Legal Foundation; n the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute; n the National Taxpayers Union; n the Michigan-based Mackinac Center; and, n the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

The Freedom Foundation can’t imagine a more gratifying show of support. The organizations represented on this list are the cream when it comes to organizations standing up for workers’ rights and the Constitution, and the arguments they advance were formulated by some of the nation’s most respected legal minds.

They have our heartfelt thanks.

PERC complaint filed against transit union for listing nonmembers’ names

T

he whole point of having Constitutional rights is being able to exercise them without penalty.

That distinction, however, is apparently lost on Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587, which represents public transit workers in Washington state and, in its February 2021 newsletter, decided it would be a good idea to publish the names of 15 employees who had recently opted out of union membership and dues.

In response, one of those outed — a diesel mechanic at King County Metro Transit for more than 25 years — on March 3, 2021 filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Washington Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), alleging his union not only illegally interfered with his right to opt out of union membership but publicly harassed him when he tried.

ATU is clearly trying to expose someone who did nothing but follow his conscience to the anger of his co-workers in hopes of intimidating others who might be considering joining him in leaving the union.That’s not how rights are supposed to work.

Prior to 2018, workers like the mechanic had no choice but to join or pay a so-called “agency fee” to a union if they wanted to keep their jobs.

But that changed when the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME affirmed that mandatory membership, dues and fees in the public sector violate the worker’s rights under the First Amendment.

Moreover, Washington law has long recognized it is an unfair labor practice for a union to “interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of their rights…”

The article, written by Patrick Brady, ATU

By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director

587’s financial secretary, hailed the union for its “culture of unity and also (for) allow(ing) for a great diversity of opinion on many subjects related to our work life.”

Just a few lines later, however, he refers to the employees who opted out as “cowards” and “free-loaders.”

Brady complains the employees are getting valuable services for nothing because the union is required to represent even nonmembers in contract negotiations.

These workers never asked the union to speak for them or authorized it to take their money for the privilege.

Under the Constitution, they have the right to make that decision and continue to work side by side with people who choose to waive it.

Before concluding his article with the names of those who opted out, Brady makes clear he isn’t speaking only for himself, and that future issues of the newsletter will continue the practice of doxing defectors.

“In the future,” he wrote, “with the consent of our executive board, we can list all nonmembers.”

Wrong again.

In this country, you don’t get a choice about ‘allowing’ diversity of opinion. It’s the law, whether the executive board gives its consent or not.

And if ATU 587 continues to ignore it, unfair labor practices complaints — and the penalties that come with them — will be a regular part of its future.”

5

What They

&

What They What he said: “As we have argued time and time again, (right-to-work legislation would suppress wages and decrease workplace safety standards.

Attacking these standards and supports for our workforce is N.H. State Sen. BRIAN SULLIVAN never acceptD-Grantham able.”

Nashua Telegraph March 31, 2021

What he meant: “What’s never acceptable — to the unions that pull my strings, I mean — is allowing workers to decide for themselves what’s best for their unique situation rather than being forced to do what’s best for the union. If that happened, it wouldn’t hurt the workers, but it would definitely suppress my earnings.” n n n What she said: “Nearly 60 million people say they would join a union today if they could.

Union approval stands nationally at 65 percent, one of the highest marks in a half century.”

What she meant: “According to a union-sponsored poll, maybe. But JULIE LIND don’t look Secretary-Treasurer at what we San Mateo (Calif.) say. Look Central Labor Council at what we The Daily Journal do. If unions March 9 , 2021 are really all that poopular, why would we be fighting this hard for laws that force people to be in one?” n n n What he said: “I can’t think of one example where right-towork would improve our workforce.”

What he meant: “Then again, who cares what I think? It shouldn’t be up to me, or the DAVID HOFFMAN government or Government the unions to Affairs Director decide what’s NorthWestern best for individual (Mont.) Energy workers. It should be up to the work- The Jacobin March 24, 2021 er him- or herself.

That’s the whole point of right-towork — allowing people to think

for themselves and forcing unions to provide a service people will pay for rather than being handed a monpoly.”

6

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

s e u s r e h c a e t CA d n u f e d r e v o union ’: c i r o t e h r ‘ e c i pol e w t a h Califo w t o N ‘ ’ g t rnia n i o d e b d l u o eache sh sues U r over c TLA to def alls und California Teacher police es His Union 21 March 22, 20

Su Over Its Calls to Defund Police

March 15, 20 21

March 27, 2021

Making News

Freedom Foundation case earns attention nationally

Teacher sues LA union over ‘defund the police’ stance

March 27, 2021

California T e Union Over acher Sues P Defund Scho ush to ol Police March 27, 2021

California Teacher Sues Union Over Push to ‘Defund the Police’ March 20, 2021

‘I’m speaking for a lot of teachers’: Educator sues union that wants to defund police

March 21, 2021

s LA Teacher Sue and m UTLA, Says De e c to Defund Poli aw tr S t s a L e h t s a W March 24, 2021

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

7

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

Weingarten’s anti-Semitic diatribe exposes the utter depravity of her character

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.

As a practicing attorney who has spent countless hours working on lawsuits intended to help re-open California schools to in-class instruction over the objections of the unions representing that state’s educators, I long ago learned to

Jews are now part of the ownership class. What I hear when I hear that question is that those who are in the ownership class now want to take that ladder of opportunity away from those who do not have it.

By SHELLA SADOVNIK, Litigation Counsel

ignore the cringe-worthy pronouncements of Randi Weingarten, president of the National Federation of Teachers.

But as a practicing Jew, I can neither ignore nor tolerate the anti-Semitic comments she directed this week toward Jewish parents whose children — like millions of others throughout the nation — continue to languish at home pretending to learn while school districts and politicians dicker with unions over the terms under which teachers will do the jobs for which they’re being paid.

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Weingarten said: “American

She continued:

“Jews were immigrants from somewhere else. And they needed the right to have public education. And they needed power to have enough income and wealth for their families that they could put their kids through college and their kids could do better than they have done. Both economic opportunity through the labor movement and an educational opportunity through public education were key for Jews to go from the working class to the ownership class.”

The jaw-dropping irony, of course, is that Weingarten herself is Jewish — married since 2018 to a rabbi.

Wikipedia has a long entry on the controversial phenomenon of “self-hating Jews,” but for the purposes of this discussion, there’s no reason to engage in psychoanalysis.

Whatever Randi Weingarten does or doesn’t think about herself or the religion she professes to follow, she clearly has no qualms about throwing it under the bus in order to score cheap political points.

With anti-Semites.

Who else would so eagerly buy into the tired, long-discredited stereotype of Jews as the sinister, unseen puppet masters whose edicts are responsible for whatever calamity befalls the unfortunate and the envious?

In her eagerness to shift the blame from union leaders like those in Los Angeles, who have openly demanded concessions such as the defunding of law enforcement, housing for the homeless and universal health coverage in return for returning to the classroom, Weingarten revived all the old prejudices by making her own people a scapegoat.

How she squares all this with her conscience — assuming she has one — is her affair.

But there’s little question her comments render her unfit to lead the American Federation of Teachers for another minute.

If she has a shred of concern for the organization she’s led since 2008, Randi Weingarten will resign immediately.

If not, the AFT leadership and members can either remove her or forever share the stain of bigotry and ignorance.

Invoking God to smear right-to-work? Sickening

By JEFF RHODES Reprinted from THE KEENE (NH) SENTINEL April 2, 2021 (The article below appeared as a letter to the editor in response to a guest opinion published a week earlier in a New Hampshire newspaper.)

I

’m flabbergasted to think anyone could twist the truth about right-to-work protections so shamelessly, let alone three members of the clergy.

But the Sentinel’s March 25 guest opinion by Rev. Jason Wells and Bishops James Hazelwood and A. Robert Hirschfeld about New Hampshire Senate Bill 61 (“ ‘Right-towork’ harms everyday NH workers) isn’t merely inaccurate.

In a very real sense, its irresponsible mischaracterizations pose a far greater risk for anyone foolish enough to take them seriously than anything the proposed legislation could be accused of.

What their snake oil pitch conveniently neglects to mention is the unassailable truth that right-to-work laws don’t compel anyone to do anything.

Nor are they an attempt to “weaken the ability of working people to organize.”

There’s no reason whatsoever a worker in a right-to-work state couldn’t form a new union — or remain in his or her current union — if they so desire.

All the legislation would do is extend the same right of conscience to those who see the question differently.

Perhaps most offensive of all is Wells, Hazelwood and Hirschfeld’s invocation of Exodus 3:7, comparing nonunionized workers in a free society to the Hebrew slaves of ancient Egypt.

As painful as it must be for the trio to discover they don’t speak for everyone, however, there are, in fact, millions of workers in this country who don’t share their favorable opinion of union representation. Nor do they embrace the radical leftist political agenda their dues have for too long been forcibly confiscated to help fund.

In Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court empowered workers by giving them the freedom to choose for themselves whether association with a labor union makes sense in their unique situation.

If they choose to waive their right to opt out, so be it.

But if workers defect in sufficient numbers to weaken the unions, whose fault is it but the unions themselves for offering an inferior product?

In any case, conscripting millions of free Americans to fund a powerful special interest — or the leftist agenda of a handful of politically engaged clergymen — more closely resembles slavery than does the freedom of choice safeguarded in right-towork laws.

It is the height of hypocrisy for Wells, Hazelwood and Hirschfeld to abuse this forum to exercise their own freedom of speech while advocating for laws that deny the workers for whom they claim to care so passionately the same right.

Shame on them.

Jeff Rhodes is vice president for news and information with the Freedom Foundation.

8

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

SEIU 503 faces racketeering charges in connection with forged documents, wire fraud

S

taci Trees isn’t the first Oregon public employee to file suit against her union over its refusal to grant her opt-out request. Nor is hers the first instance of the union clearly forging a signature on a membership form so it could continue to confiscate dues from a worker who no longer wanted to pay.

But Trees’ case is the first to invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, alleging the union engaged in a pattern of fraudulent activity victimizing both her and other union members.

By JEFF RHODES, VP for News & Information

The lawsuit was filed on March 29, in U.S. District Court in Eugene by the Freedom Foundation.

It names Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 503, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services and its director, Katy Coba, as defendants.

Trees, employed by the Oregon Department of Transportation, was

Oregon Update

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

required to either sign a union membership card or pay an agency fee to SEIU 503 when she was originally hired in 2009.

But in June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Janus v. AFSCME that mandatory union membership, dues and fees in the public sector are a violation of the worker’s First Amendment rights.

Within a month, Trees contacted the union and requested her release.

After numerous delays, SEIU 503 finally canceled her membership in December 2020.

But Trees was informed in an email that the union would continue deducting around $100 a month in dues until at least February 2021 because, under the terms of a new agreement she signed in 2016, all memberships would be renewed automatically unless the worker opted out during an annual twoweek window.

Trees, however, couldn’t remember signing such an agreement and, when she demanded to see it, not only had her signature been forged, but important personal details had simply been made up.

“If Staci Trees was the only person this had ever happened to, you could conceivably blame it on inefficiency or incompetence,” said Freedom Foundation attorney Rebekah Millard. “But this isn’t an isolated case.”

Millard said SEIU’s actions violate both state and federal RICO laws because the union issued numerous electronic communications that fraudulently claimed Trees authorized deductions she didn’t.

Moreover, the complaint cites four other current lawsuits in which the SEIU 503 engaged in similar behavior against other Oregon public employees.

“It’s time for the courts to recognize these are not isolated instances and take action to hold SEIU 503 accountable,” she said.

Unions aren’t fooling anyone about their true priorities

A

s organized labor continues its push for the deceptively named Protect the Right to Organize (PRO) Act on the national stage, let’s not forget that union leaders in Oregon have, time and again, lobbied lawmakers in Salem for their own set of rules designed for essentially the same reason — to tilt the playing field entirely in their own favor and away from workers.

They’ve done it successfully for years, turning Oregon’s collective bargaining laws for government workers into some of the most lopsided in the country.

But they always want more.

The latest damning example is House Bill 3029, sponsored by a trio of House Democrats at the request of Oregon AFSCME, one of the state’s most powerful government unions.

The seemingly innocuous measure would have allowed union “card check” campaigns — a type of expedited union drive in which organizers collect signed authorizations from workers — to be completed electronically rather than using paper copies.

Sounds entirely reasonable, right?

In one sense, yes. After all, many of us regularly bank online, shop online and sign legal documents electronically, don’t we? There’s nothing necessarily wrong with transitioning Oregon’s labor laws into the 21st century.

Except that’s not what AFSCME leaders really wanted. What they really wanted in HB 3029 was a two-part equation, each part as important as the other: First, to organize unions

By BEN STRAKA, Policy Analyst

using modern technology and, second, to deny those same capabilities to any dissatisfied workers seeking to challenge them.

In fact, AFSCME leaders wanted this unfair advantage so badly that they outright lied to lawmakers about it.

During the bill’s first committee hearing, AFSCME Associate Director Joe Baessler claimed it was an innocent measure designed to bring Oregon law “in line” with existing federal regulations for private-sector unions.

What he conspicuously neglected to mention was that while federal regulations do allow for electronic signatures in union campaigns, they allow them for all types of campaigns, including workers’ attempts to change or remove their union.

My organization notified committee members of the falsehood, and lawmakers quickly introduced an amendment to fix the bill.

Specifically, the amendment would extend the same electronic capabilities described in HB 3029 to all types of union-related campaigns equally.

Problem solved, right? AFSCME leaders would still get what they supposedly “wanted,” and the amended bill would accomplish precisely what they had told lawmakers their goal was in the first place.

Apparently not. As it turns out, union bosses aren’t too pleased with

the idea of a level playing field.

When asked in the next committee hearing about why AFSCME’s original version of HB 3029 sought to give union organizers the benefits of modern technology while denying it to others, Baessler was forced to acknowledge the truth about the bill and gave a shockingly honest comment about AFSCME’s disregard for dissenting workers’ rights, saying, “We didn’t think (campaigns to change or remove a union) was a priority… and we still don’t.”

Say again? Your organization specifically crafted a bill to allow union proponents to organize with the click of a button while denying similar capabilities to union dissenters, all because it didn’t think they were a “priority”?

That’s kind of like saying workers should be able to sign up for union membership online but should have to send a physical letter via horse-drawn carriage at high noon on the equinox during an odd-numbered year while standing on one foot should they ever wish to resign because they’re not a “priority.”

But that would be ridiculous. Oh wait… AFSCME does that, too.

Are such things really because union leaders believe nonmembers and those who don’t agree with the union’s onesize-fits-all model aren’t a priority? Or is it because, in reality, stifling any dissent is their priority?

Try as they might, union bosses aren’t fooling anybody. Make no mistake, they want laws that work only for themselves and their supporters, not all workers.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

Illegals learning in person while San Diego residents stay home

A

s if California hadn’t long since cemented its status as the most tonedeaf, irresponsibly liberal enclave in the nation, the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) during April announced it would be “providing the educational program for the unaccompanied migrant children” (emphasis added) staying at the San Diego Convention Center.

At least the Golden State is overachieving at something.

Using volunteer teachers, the plan is to instruct the youngsters in English language development and something called “social-emotional learning opportunities” (no doubt including the obligatory leftist indoctrination and a comprehensive overview of the myriad free products and services available to anyone able to shinny over or under border fences erected specifically to keep

them out). And all of this will happen face to face.

In a classroom. COVID be damned.

Meanwhile, the district’s 130,000 regular students — whose parents have the misfortune to live in this country legally and pay the taxes that fund its education system — continue to languish at home trying to educate themselves with a laptop computer as the union representing their teachers continues to wrangle with California’s governor over how many concessions will be needed to make them agree with the opinion of the federal Centers for Disease Control that it’s long past time to end prohibitions on inclass learning.

Even provided one accepts the highly dubious (in the real world, at least) proposition that illegal aliens somehow have a claim not only on this nation’s Constitution

Unions would gain influence under the PRO Act. What does that mean for California?

By KATE IRBY Reprinted from the SACRAMENTO BEE March 23, 2021

A

m high-profile bill that House Democrats passed this month will make it easier for private-sector workers to join unions, but it won’t do much directly for labor organizations representing California government employees.

That’s by design.

Unions already feel strong in the public sector, but they’ve lost influence among private companies. That’s led to union advocates to want to push for more action in the private sector before turning to the public sector, according to Steve Smith, spokesman for the California Labor Federation.

“We have a high level of unionization in the public sector, especially here in California,” Smith said. “The Janus decision, as challenging as that’s been for us, unions have actually lost very few members because of it.”

Nationally, about 35 percent of public-sector workers are unionized, while only 6 percent of private-sector workers are unionized, according to a 2020 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In California, about 18 percent of all employed workers are represented by a union.

Democrats passed the PRO Act, in the House on party lines, but it’s stalled until the Senate chooses to take it up or not.

Though Democrats narrowly control the Senate, it would still require at least 10 Senate Republicans to support it in order to pass to break a potential filibuster.

Part of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, known as the PRO Act, would allow private-sector unions across the country to charge fees to workers who benefit from contracts they negotiate even if the employees do not want to participate in the organization.

Those charges are known as “fairshares” by advocates, but called forced dues by people who don’t want to pay them.

California public employee unions lost the power to levy fair share fees in 2018, when the Supreme Court handed down a decision known as Janus vs. AFSCME

that prohibited the practice among labor groups representing govenment workers.

But there are other provisions in the bill that would be a change for private sector unions in California.

Notably, it changes the definition of “employee,” which would allow millions of gig workers such as rideshare drivers the right to organize and form a union.

Some Republican lawmakers have called the law a federal version of California’s Assembly Bill 5, a labor law that passed in 2019 and required businesses to give employment benefits to more workers.

But the PRO Act different from the California law in that it doesn’t guarantee those employees certain wages and benefits. Instead, it just allows them to participate in unionizing efforts.

Another change that has union critics up in arms is one on binding arbitration.

Currently, unions and employers have to negotiate in good faith, and neither has to agree with a proposal made by the other.

Under the newly proposed process, unions and employers would have three months to come to an agreement before a government mediator could step in. If the parties still don’t agree for another month, the mediator can impose a contract regardless of either party’s agreement.

“Under this proposal, the government is weighing in on the outcomes. It decides what terms are negotiated and decided,” said Maxford Nelsen, Director of Labor Policy at the Freedom Foundation.

“That’s an incredible encroachment on the part of the federal government on the rights part of private business to conduct their own affairs.

It’s really quite sweeping.”

Finally, the proposed law would make it easier for private unions to form. Right now, if a majority of workers indicate they want to unionize then the employer can voluntarily recognize the union

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

By AARON WITHE, CEO

al rights but also its taxpayer-provided privileges, it’s still incomprehensible that they should be moved directly to the front of the line when they’re being handed out.

Whatever rights “undocumented immigrants” have, they do not supersede those of actual Americans — particularly in light of the latter’s documented suffering.

Studies have shown conclusively that distance learning has brought about an epidemic of depression, obesity, substance abuse and suicide among youngsters accustomed to socializing face-to-face with their peers every day in school.

Where’s the urgency to serve their needs?

The actions of San Diego school district officials this week have once again exposed their cynical lies.

Again, not that we needed more proof.

Spotlight on

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

or request a secret ballot.

Employees vote on whether they’d like to unionize, and if a majority votes to unionize then it’s recognized by the National Labor Relations Board and the employer.

Under the proposed changes, unions would have two chances to organize if the employer requests the secret ballot.

If the vote fails, the union can challenge the results based on allegations of employer interference, including intimidating employees into voting against unionization.

If the National Labor Relations Board agrees with that assessment, employees can organize through a process called card check.

Card checks mean union representatives can approach each employee individually to ask them to vote to unionize.

If they get a majority of employees to sign on that way, they can unionize.

9

10

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

FREEDOM in ACTION

Emails: Letter to the executive director of the Washington Education Association: Dear Director: I’m happy some public schools have finally re-opened and teachers are back, but some public schools are still closed.

Meanwhile, private and charter schools are open.

These schools provided safe education when public school teachers were AWOL. I thought public school teachers were critical. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Public school students missed an entire school year. Every one of them suffered academically, but many have also suffered from psychological isolation or physical abuse that may take years to recover from, assuming they ever do.

The current arrangement has also impacted families both financially and emotionally.

Online education is a joke.

Charter schools provide parents with a better choice for their education dollars.

Getting a teaching job should require the skills to do the job, not the obligation to join a labor union. The law prevents discrimination based on gender, race, age or ethnicity. Why does it permit forced membership?

I think unions want fraternity because union bosses find it easier than selling teachers on the benefits of joining a “Brotherhood of Labor.”

Just so you know, I’m donating half of my $1,400 COVID stimulus money to the Freedom Foundation, which educates teachers about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which affirmed that mandatory union membership and dues for public employees are a violation of their First Amendment rights.

ARDEAN ANVICK Shelton, Wash.

Parents have had enough; it’s time to re-open schools

By SHELLA SADOVNIK Reprinted from the ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER April 6, 2021

I

magine reading a text message from your 11-year-old son in which he tells you he wants to die.

Now imagine you’re heartsick, but not entirely surprised. After all, you’ve seen this coming.

Your once-happy, healthy, active child has lately become sullen and depressed. Instead of going out and engaging socially with his friends, he sits in his room day and night surfing the Internet and playing violent computer games.

He has angry outbursts toward his family, he’s gained considerable weight … and now he’s contemplating suicide.

It didn’t used to be this way. Until relatively recently, much of his day was taken up with an activity that challenged his mind, encouraged interaction with his peers and gave him a sense of purpose.

It was called school, and he always did well at it. But it has been over a year since he and all his classmates were barred from the classroom out of fear over COVID-19 and told to educate themselves at home with a laptop and a connection to Zoom.

And it seemed like a prudent idea at the time, given how little we knew about the virus.

But we know considerably more now.

For starters, we know the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated with confidence that schools can — and should — re-open for in-class instruction by adopting a few commonsense precautions.

We also know we’re paying a devasting price for distance learning that includes an epidemic of depression, indifference, obesity … and a skyrocketing rates of youth suicide.

Moreover, students are increasingly requiring expensive medical and psychological care, and many already cash-strapped parents have had no choice but to enroll their children in private schools.

Meanwhile, public schools across the state remain closed while the governor, the Legislature and local school districts continue to dicker with the unions representing California teachers over the conditions under which their members will return to the classroom. In Los Angeles, the demands are especially

outrageous. They include defunding law enforcement, spending more on homelessness, cash payments and a laundry list of items that have nothing whatever to do with the safety or wellbeing of students or teachers.

For a handful of parents, the unnecessary delays have become intolerable, and now they’ve turned to the courts for help.

On March 30, four families represented by the Freedom Foundation, a national nonprofit advocacy organization that fights against the abuse of power by public employee unions, filed a first-of-its-kind personal injury lawsuit in California Superior Court against the Los Angeles United School District (LAUSD), United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) its president, Cecily Myart-Cruz, and executive director Jeffrey Good, for the damages the protracted closure has caused their children and themselves.

In the lawsuit, the parents’ allegations are focused on the legal relationship between their children, LAUSD and UTLA. Under the well-established doctrine of in loco parentis — Latin for “in the place of a parent” — LAUSD has a legal responsibility to make decisions and act in the best interests of its students. By failing to return the students to class because of UTLA’s obstruction, LAUSD violated this responsibility.

What’s more, UTLA knew about LAUSD’s responsibility and the harm the plaintiffs’ children were suffering and still continued to prevent a return to class.

The parents are asking the court to recognize these legal relationships and their corresponding responsibilities, and to order that UTLA stop putting its political agenda over the health and well-being of the plaintiffs’ children and the other 600,000 students in LAUSD. For more than a year, the school district, the teacher’s union and Myart-Cruz have taken actions we now know have resulted in very real damages to the students they’re supposed to be serving.

If their consciences won’t allow them to set aside their politics and opportunism long enough to perform their proscribed duties, maybe the law can.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBL ICAT ION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

11

FREEDOM in the NEWS ON AIR

MARCH 30 , 2021

Central Oregon ODOT worker sues union over dues, invokes Racketeering Act “The lawsuit was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in Eugene by the Freedom Foundation, which describes itself as ‘a national nonprofit watchdog organization specializing in public-sector union abuses.’ It names Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 503, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services and its director, Katy Coba, as defendants.”

ON LINE

March 13, 2021

More case studies in union misconduct “The Freedom Foundation asserts that the use of electronic communications to secure withholding of the dues purportedly authorized by the forged membership card constitutes a “pattern of false and fraudulent conduct” that violates the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), especially when combined with other alleged cases of ‘misrepresenting the authorization of dues deductions.’ ”

ON IN PRINT

Feb. 23, 2021

Woman vs. the Union Machine: Suing Oregon, SEIU to vindicate her right not to pay fees “The Freedom Foundation, which is representing Ms. Trees, says it is litigating at least four other alleged forgery cases involving SEIU 503.

Ms. Trees says she asked her employer’s payroll department to stop deducting dues but was told, ‘we take orders from the union about when to stop deducting dues.’ She recently filed a lawsuit alleging that the SEIU is violating the federal and Oregon versions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.”

ONLINE

March 17, 2021

Workers’ rights group taps Nelsen as senior fellow “Maxford Nelsen, labor policy director for the Freedom Foundation, has been named a senior fellow by the Institute for the American Worker (I4AW). “We are honored to bring together some of the greatest analytical and strategic minds from the most respected policy organizations working on free market labor policy,” said F. Vincent Vernuccio, president and founder of I4AW.”

Brief argues that Janus also protects nonmembers

T

he Freedom Foundation has filed an “friend of the court” brief on behalf of itself and client Joseph Johnson in Hoekman v. Education Minnesota, an important case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

The case concerns the scope of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME. Imagine you started a new job and were informed by your employer the law required a certain amount of your pay deducted and given to a third-party employee representation organization whose values and tactics you abhorred. Still, you were told you could either become a member and pay full dues or opt out

LA LAWSUIT Continued from page 1 as what you’d expect to find in any large, impersonal penal institution. But wait, it gets worse.

According to the agreement, here’s what recess will look like: “Students may not engage in any play that involves touching, tagging, bumping or approaching another student closer than six feet. At this time, playground equipment will be off-limits to students.”

And then there’s this: “Students bringing toys or objects to the school to share

By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL Litigation Counsel

of membership but still pay an “agency fee” amounting to about 95 percent of you were paying to start with.

If this hypothetical was presented in any context other than a public labor union, we’d call this “choice” what it very plainly was — a shakedown.

In its brief, Freedom Foundation argues that Janus protects the First Amendment rights of members just as much as non-members.

Most importantly, a deduction

will have them immediately confiscated and quarantined for a week before being returned.”

Just to restate the obvious, there are two components to school — learning and socialization.

For the past year, neither of these goals has been met while students have cowered at home in front of a laptop screen. And nothing in the hybrid plan will make any great difference.

Beyond that, Strobel’s decision was also the wrong one because it assumes UTLA leaders would make a good faith effort to ensure teachers are in the classroom on Monday.

If the union was only concerned about student and teacher

process that is entirely controlled by unions, which have a direct interest in seeing the money continue to flow no matter what, is inherently unconstitutional. Rather than employers confirming their own employees have waived their First Amendment rights, or putting processes in place to make sure no money is taken from their paychecks unless they’ve already done so, the unions get to decide.

The First Amendment forbids such a backward and unfair scheme.

There are also specific requirements that make a waiver of constitutional rights, like the right against compelled speech, valid.

Judges are not supposed to

safety, it could have complied with guidelines set forth by the federal Centers for Disease Control last July and opened more or less normally in the fall.

Unfortunately, the pandemic has presented UTLA and its president, Cecily-Myart Cruz, with bargaining leverage it didn’t have before — even with the threat of a strike.

Not only does the union want financial considerations, but its leaders have also floated demands that have nothing to do with wages, benefits or working conditions before teachers will return to the classroom. These include such radical leftist ideals as: n defunding law enforcement; n creation of a single-payer healthcare system;

simply assume a supposed waiver of rights is valid. Instead, they’re supposed to consider the evidence for the waiver and decide whether or not someone actually intended to do so.

This means investigating whether someone actually knew they were waiving their rights, whether they did so freely and whether their waiver was current.

Unions change their political messaging all the time. Just because you consented once doesn’t mean you consent forever.

Public-sector unions and their government allies will stop at nothing in order to see the Janus decision gutted and rendered a dead letter.

n full funding for California’s homeless population; n a new set of programs to address the state’s “systemic racism” problem; n elimination of publicly funded, privately operated charter schools; and, of course; n a sweeping array of new taxes on the state’s wealthy to pay for it all.

Again, Judge Strobel’s response might have been the correct one if there were no pandemic, no urgency to address youngsters currently suffering under the existing arrangement and no union determined to exploit the crisis and hold thousands of students hostage to its decidedly political agenda.

Unfortunately, we have all of the above.

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 19

Attorneys for the Freedom Foundation on March 19 filed a request for certiorari in Boardman v. Inslee, which challenges Initiative 1501, a 2016 Washington state ballot measure that promised to crack down on identity theft targeting seniors but, in fact, was intended to prevent thousands of homecare providers from discovering they could no longer be forced to join or pay dues to a labor union.

March 29 The Freedom Foundation files suit on behalf of Oregon Department of Transportation worker Staci Trees, who alleges the union denied her lawful request to opt of the union. And in the process, SEIU 503 not only authored a series of dishonest electronic communications, but union operatives allegedly forged

By the numbers Between April 7 and 13, 428 public employees opted out of their union thanks directly to the efforts of the Freedom Foundation.

Trees’ signature on a bogus membership contract in order to continue collecting her dues of about $100 a month. The Freedom Foundation has filed lawsuits on behalf of four other Oregon public employees — and as many as 10 in neighboring Washington and Oregon. Because of that and the multiple fraudulent communications, Freedom Foundation attorneys are accusing SEIU 503 of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. April 4 The lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, “The SEIU as ‘Infrastructure’: Biden’s $400-billion plan to expand the union’s dues-paying

membership,” cites Freedom Foundation research, noting, “This is an SEIU pattern around the country. According to the Freedom Foundation think tank, states diverted $150 million in 2017 from caregiver Medicaid payments to unions. This money finances labor advocacy and Democrats.”

April 7 Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel’s denies the Freedom Foundation’s request for a temporary restraining order against United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) in a personal injury lawsuit designed to get local kids back into the classroom despite the ongoing COVID restrictions.

Strobel claimed there was no real need for a TRO since the county’s schools were scheduled to open the following Monday, but her ruling neglected to recognize that, under the hybrid arrangement being used, students would only be in class for a few hours a day. Plus, the union had officially dropped none of the demands it was making for teachers to return to class permanently.

The lawsuit will continue.

April 15 The Freedom Foundation files

a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of itself and client Joseph Johnson in Hoekman v. Education Minnesota, an important case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. In its brief, Freedom Foundation argues that a deduction process that is entirely controlled by unions, which have a direct interest in seeing the money continue to flow no matter what, is inherently unconstitutional.

April 15 For the third time, the Freedom Foundation has obtained a successful outcome for a Medicaid-compensated homecare provider whose signature was forged on a membership agreement so her union could continue deducting dues from her modest pay against her wishes. Maria Gatdula, a home-based caregiver in Washington, first attempted to opt out of SEIU 775 in 2019. The union, however, refused to honor her request, claiming she had signed an electronic membership agreement in October 2019 that required her to pay dues — and union-directed political contributions — until 2020. When it was determined the document had been forged, SEIU 775 grudgingly agreed to refund dues it had deducted illegally.

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.