October Living Liberty

C O MP L A IN T S F IL E D A G A IN S T WA S HIN G T O N C I T IE S , U NI O N S [5 ] U NI O N S A R E N ’ T W H AT L A B O R D AY H O N O R S [8 ]

LIVINGLIBERTY

FREEDOM FOUNDATION EARNS UNANIMOUS 9-0 VICTORY OVER UNIONS. PAGE 4

A PUBLICATION OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION | OCTOBER 2019

‘You’re

on the Right side’ BANQUET CROWD HEARS ROUSING ADDRESS FROM LAURA INGRAHAM AS PROTESTERS WHINE OUTSIDE

Electronic Service Requested

Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507

F

ox News host Laura Ingraham called the Freedom Foundation a “great organization” and told a sold-out ballroom full of well-wishers attending the group’s annual banquet she was proud of the great work it does.

Earlier, to the thunderous cheers from those attending, Freedom Foundation CEO Tom McCabe announced, “In just a little over a year after government workers were released from being legally forced to financially support a union, the Freedom Foundation has directly helped 60,000 of them walk away and stop paying dues.”

He continued, “That amounts to $50 million that goes back into the pockets of hardworking Americans, and not to line the pockets of union bosses.”

Meanwhile, on the sidewalk outside the event, held on Sept. 21 at the Bellevue Hyatt Regency, a motley collection of paid protesters and professional agitators staged their annual demonstration.

If you didn’t know better, you’d swear one side was winning and the other losing.

As usual, the unions are outraged by the Freedom Foundation’s success at informing government employees that, thanks to

By JEFF RHODES Managing Editor

a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, they can no longer be compelled to pay dues or fees to a union.

A record crowd of nearly 400 Freedom Foundation friends and supporters came to celebrate the group’s successes since the landmark Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision in June 2018.

The irony wasn’t lost on Ingraham, the evening’s keynote speaker.

“Be not afraid,” she encouraged attendees. “Be strong. Be confident. You’re on the right side. You’re supporting a great institution, an organization of American patriots standing against the forces of coercion and corruption.”

Ingraham tweeted a picture of the “paid union protestors” and called their opposition a “badge of honor” for the Freedom Foundation.

Ingraham also tweeted a picture of herself with California First Amendment attorney and frequent Fox News guest Harmeet Dhillon, saying “(G)reat to be with the great patriots like Harmeet Dhillon in Washington State standing for the great work of the Freedom Foundation! Support their right to work efforts!”

Her address was classic Ingraham — starting out with a humorous riff on each of the current Democratic candidates for president and concluding with a rousing call to arms for conservatives frustrated by seeing the country’s traditional values mocked and derided by those on the political left.

“They want to steal your freedom,” she said. “They want to want to change this constitutional democracy. Do not let them do it.

“Until I take my last breath I will be See BANQUET Page 6

VOLUME 30 | ISSUE 10

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

Publisher: Tom McCabe Editor: Jeff Rhodes

CONTACT Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507

(360) 956-3482 FreedomFoundation.com

“Quote”

[2]

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CAT I ON OF T HE FREED OM FOU NDATION

CONTENTS PAGE 3 LEADERSHIP MEMO

By TOM McCABE The Unions Hate Us, And We Like to Think They Have a Reason To.

PAGE 4

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM

By JAMES DREW

EDITORIAL

Supreme Court Rules UW Emails Must Be Disclosed.

Court Makes the Right Call in Public Records Case.

Reprinted from the News Tribune

Reprinted from the Seattle Times

PAGE 5

What They Said & What They Meant

LITIGATING FREEDOM

By MAXFORD NELSEN Campaign Finance Complaints Filed Against Washington Cities, Unions.

PAGES 6-7

~ of the month ~

The Freedom Foundation’s 2019 Banquet Was a Rousing Success. It Entertained the Attendees and Ouraged the Traditional Union Protesters.

PAGE 8

OREGON UPDATE

By MIKE NEARMAN Unions Aren’t What Labor Day Honors.

By BOAZ DILLON SEIU 503 Endorses Laughable Green New Deal.

“As we continue to celebrate Labor Day and reflect on the one-year anniversary of the Janus decision, all Pennsylvanians ought to be able to unite behind the idea that workers should be able to make the best choice for themselves and their families.”

ASHLEY KLINGENSMITH Pennsylvania director/ People for Economic Progress Swarthmore, Penn. Daily Times Sept. 10, 2019

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

PAGE 10

PAGE 9

FREEDOM IN ACTION

BEST OF THE BLOG

By JAMI LUND Union Saber-Rattling Shows Why Transparency is Needed.

By JEFF RHODES Unions and the Participation Trophy Paradox.

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

PAGE 11

FREEDOM IN THE NEWS

By TYLER O’NEIL

Reprinted from PJ MEDIA

Even on Labor Day, Unions Still Working to Suppress Workers’ Free Speech Rights.

PAGE 12

ACTION TIMELINE

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

3

MEMO

LIVING LIBERTY

THEY HAVE A REASON T0

A

nother successful Freedom Foundation annual banquet is in the books, and to no one’s surprise, this year’s event — held on Sept. 21 at the Bellevue Hyatt Regency — was enlivened once again by a three-ring circus staged on the sidewalks outside by our union friends and their fellow travelers on the political left.

It’s been like this ever since I arrived six years ago and immediately focused all the Freedom Foundation’s resources on the singular mission of exposing and combatting the excesses of public-sector unions.

The Freedom Foundation’s leaders in those days were keenly aware that unions like SEIU, AFSCME, the NEA, the Teamsters and many others operated like a shadow government — confiscating dues or agency fees from every single public employee and spending nearly all of it to elect corruptible liberal candidates who passed laws that keep the whole dirty enterprise legal.

Unfortunately, with government thoroughly compromised and politicians at every level making decisions that cater to the state’s most powerful special interest rather than the voters, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Consequently, the Freedom Foundation did what virtually every other conservative policy organization still does today: It created a variety of programs that dealt with property rights, education, the environment, budget issues — just about any area where liberal bad ideas stand in the way of our fundamental goal of advancing free markets and limited, accountable government.

The Freedom Foundation did a lot of important, meaningful work in its formative years, too. But the unions never bothered to protest because they were never targeted directly.

All that changed the day we concluded that none of the reforms the Freedom Foundation advocates for will ever happen as long as government employee unions are still pulling the strings in Olympia, Salem, Sacramento — and Washington, D.C., too.

The unions became the only target in our crosshairs — and almost immediately they started firing back.

Within six months, a union-funded coalition had filed the first of many frivolous lawsuits against us — a case that continues to drag on to this very day. And within a year, they’d created and funded a shadowy spinoff operation about which little is known except its name — ironically, it calls itself the Northwest Accountability Project — and that its full-time mission is to smear the Freedom Foundation.

Except it isn’t working.

Everything NWAP does is supposed to either erode our credibility in the eyes of union members — thus reducing the number of out-outs — or somehow persuade our donors their money is being wasted on a fool’s errand.

But much to their annoyance, neither is happening.

By our count, for example, the Freedom Foundation is directly responsible for freeing more than 60,000 public-sector workers in Washington, Oregon and California from union

tyranny in just the 17 months since the U.S. Supreme Court afBy TOM McCABE, CEO firmed their right to do so last year in Janus v.

AFSCME. And rather than driving workers away from the Freedom Foundation, NWAP’s ham-fisted efforts appear to be doing just the opposite.

After all, the workers already know they don’t like their union. And while they may never have heard of the Freedom Foundation, they reason that anyone the union fears this much must be doing something right.

As for our donors, don’t look now, but this year’s banquet was the best attended — and most profitable — in Freedom Foundation history. And not just because nationally respected conservative commentator Laura Ingraham was our keynote speaker, either.

We put that theory to the test three years ago when Seattle Seahawk legend Steve Largent was the special guest.

The man is a Hall of Famer and one of the most beloved figures in Seattle history, and yet the union protest that night was just as large, loud and vulgar as it was this year.

Banquet speakers come and go, but the Freedom Foundation — and its commitment to everything unions hate — remains steadfast.

If anyone’s wasting someone else’s money, it’s the Northwest Accountability Project, not us. Our donors get a tangible return on their investment measured in the number of public employees we’re able to help escape their union and the amount of money they have to spend trying unsuccessfully to stop us.

The backbone of the Freedom Foundation’s financial support has always been its individual donors — the kind of civic-minded Americans who show up to our banquets every year to express amazement at all we’re able to accomplish on their behalf and laugh at the comical attempts of our opponents to insist otherwise.

The Freedom Foundation’s countless benefactors couldn’t be more pleased with us, and we know that’s true because if it wasn’t, we’d be out of business tomorrow.

Unions and their hired slander artists at the Northwest Accountability Project wouldn’t understand that because their funding for years came from people who had no choice but to pay it, and even today comes from too many workers who still don’t know the rules of the game have changed.

That’s where we come in, and we do our job spectacularly well — despite all the lies you may have heard to the contrary.

LEADERSHIP

THE UNIONS HATE US, AND WE LIKE TO THINK

“

The Freedom Foundation’s countless benectors couldn’t be more pleased with us; and we know that’s true because if it wasn’t, we’d be out of business tomorrow.

”

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 BL IC AT I ON OF T HE FREEDOM FOUNDAT I ON

THE CASE FOR FREEDOM SUPREME COURT RULES 9-0 AGAINST UNIONS

T

he Washington State Supreme Court on Aug. 29 issued a unanimous ruling in favor of a Freedom Foundation public information request from 2015 that establishes important precedents in public records law — and rebukes a powerful government employee union for trying to abuse it.

In SEIU 925 v. University of Washington, the justices overturned a motion for summary judgment granted at the trial court level, and later affirmed by the Division 1 Court of Appeals, that had prevented the release of more than 3,800 emails and other documents related to union organizing on the UW campus.

The Freedom Foundation filed the original information request in December 2015, seeking anything generated by four specific UW employees referencing labor-related phrases such as “Freedom Foundation,” “right-to-work,” “Northwest Accountability Project” or “Friedrichs v. California.”

The university’s Office of Public Records & Public Meetings agreed the information being sought probably was a matter of public record and stated its intention to honor the request. But before it could do so, Service Employees International Union 925 — which wasn’t even recognized as the bargaining representative for any of the four employees — intervened on behalf of Robert Wood, UW’s representative to the American Association of University Professors and an active supporter

By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor

of efforts to unionize its faculty.

SEIU 925 attorneys successfully persuaded judges at the trial and appellate court levels the information couldn’t be made public — despite its having been produced on UW-provided devices — because it dealt with issues beyond the scope of Wood’s normal duties as a professor of atmospheric sciences. The trial court also ruled, inexplicably, that e-mails relating to union organizing and the AAUP were private and did not relate to the functions of government.

Arguing before the Washington Supreme Court in May 2019, SYDNEY however, Freedom PHILLIPS Foundation Litigation Counsel Sydney Phillips argued the “scope of employment” argument was wrongly applied in this case.

She cited the example of a hypothetical professor sending a sexually harassing e-mail to a colleague whose contents might be outside the scope of his employment and not disclosable under the union standard, even though it certainly related to the “conduct of government” as defined by state law.

Ultimately, the court agreed.

Writing for all nine of her colleagues, Justice Debra Stephens noted, “The Court of Appeals erred by applying the ‘scope of employment’ test to determine whether the records at issue in this case — most of which are concededly retained on agency servers — are disclosable.”

The court also ruled that most of the e-mails relating to union organizing and the AAUP “appear to satisfy (the functions of government) standard because they most likely address faculty working conditions or the UW’s educational mission” and should be disclosed.

“Accordingly,” she concluded, “we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and permanently enjoining the release of these records.”

As a result of the ruling, the “scope of employment” test will only restrict disclosure of emails sent on public employees’ personal devices — not those they send using a university’s servers, for example.

Equally significant, all communications relating to union organizing should be considered public records going forward.

“Washington state law is clear,” Phillips said. “The question of what is and isn’t a matter of public record must be interpreted as broadly as possible while exceptions should be rare. SEIU 925 was trying to create a hole in the law you could drive a truck through.”

COURT MAKES RIGHT CALL IN PUBLIC RECORDS CASE By the EDITORIAL STAFF Reprinted from the SEATTLE TIMES Sept. 3, 2019

W

ashington’s Supreme Court strengthened the state’s Public Records Act this month, affirming that a batch of state employee emails on state computers are public records.

The unanimous Sept. 5 ruling, penned by Justice Debra Stephens, affirmed that emails sent by University of Washington Professor Rob Wood and stored on UW computer systems were public records.

This was a welcome decision reflecting the will of Washingtonians.

Voters created the act with a 1972 initiative, making the state a leader in transparency.

Had the ruling gone the other direction, in favor of a union trying to keep the records secret, it would have devastated the act, restricting future public access to records needed to hold government accountable.

The Wood emails related to workplace union organizing. Some were on private email accounts but accessed and retained on state-owned computer systems.

The Freedom Foundation, a conservative organization, requested them. Service Employees Interna-

tional Union 925 sued to block their release and had prevailed in Superior Court and the Court of Appeals.

That these are public records seems obvious. The act defines public records to include “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” A series of rulings has affirmed this applies to records on computers and even personal phones when used for government-related activity.

That doesn’t mean everything is revealed. The act exempts sensitive and private information, but all messages may be retrieved when an agency is gathering information in response to a records request.

The agency creates a log of what’s disclosed, what’s exempt and why.

That creates a process where, if necessary, a judge can decide whether records were properly withheld.

The key principle is that the public needs broad access to know what its government is doing, gauge per-

formance and decide whether employees are acting appropriately.

The public is the employer, paying for salaries, computers and services to store and transmit emails and other electronic information.

Just like a private employer, it maintains access to stay informed about the conduct of employees and how its dollars are used.

That’s why, in the separate pending case, the Legislature’s refusal to abide by the act, and fully disclose public records documenting its activity, is so galling.

In a lawsuit brought by The Associated Press, this newspaper and other media organizations, a Superior Court judge last year said the Legislature is indeed subject to the records act, just like every other legislative body in the state, such as city councils and school boards.

Rather than comply, the Legislature rushed through a bill exempting itself from the records act.

After a public outcry, the governor vetoed the bill, and lawmakers stood down.

That suit is now before the Supreme Court — oral arguments were held in June.

(Public employees) work for the people, and the people are paying dearly for computer servers and email services, as well as their file cabinets.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

LITIGATING FREEDOM

5

What They

&

What They What she said: “The Freedom Foundation is a terrorist organization.”

CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST WASHINGTON CITIES, UNIONS

I

n September, the Freedom Foundation filed six complaints with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleging three cities and three unions violated campaign finance laws while opposing local ballot propositions in 2014 that sought to make union dues payment optional for public employees and make collective bargaining negotiations involving public-sector unions and government officials open to public observation.

The two policy proposals were based on model language generated by the Freedom Foundation.

Citizen activists in Chelan, Sequim and Shelton decided to attempt to pass the ideas as ballot propositions in their respective cities. The activists in each city gathered enough signatures in the summer of 2014 to qualify the propositions for placement on the ballot at the next city election. However, each city council refused to permit a public vote on the propositions.

Justifiably upset, local taxpayers filed suit against the cities to force them to place the propositions on the ballot. In each lawsuit, local labor unions — including Teamsters Local 589 in Sequim, the International Association of Machinists Local W38 in Shelton and the Washington State Council of County and City Employees/AFSCME Council 2 in Chelan — hired outside attorneys to defend the city’s decision to stonewall the propositions.

County superior courts ultimately ruled against the taxpayers, who did not appeal, and the propositions never appeared on the ballot.

But that was just the beginning of the saga.

In October 2015, the Washington Attorney General (AG) filed suit against the Freedom Foundation for violating the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) by failing to disclose legal services provided to the citizen activists as campaign expenses to the PDC. It was the first time state laws had been interpreted as requiring the disclosure of free legal services as election expenses in situations like this in which no election ever took place.

State courts were divided about whether the law had even been broken.

In May 2016, a Thurston County Superior Court judge determine the Foundation had done nothing wrong and ruled against the AG, finding the law to be “ambiguous and vague.”

The AG appealed the decision and, in November 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s ruling. Accordingly, the Freedom Foundation appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court, which regrettably ruled against the Foundation in a 5-4 decision.

By MAXFORD NELSEN, Labor Policy Director

As the four dissenting justices observed, however, “…both the trial court and the Court of Appeals expressly acknowledged that the FCPA is ambiguous with respect to whether it compels reporting of independent expenditures in support of initiatives not yet on the ballot in noncharter cities. The majority implicitly acknowledges the same thing… The majority resolves that ambiguity against the speaker and in favor of the government. But resolving an ambiguity in a statute implicating free speech against the speaker and in favor of the government violates controlling precedent of this court and of the United States Supreme Court.”

Because the Washington Supreme Court’s decision “(implicated) free speech,” the Freedom Foundation petitioned for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, which it declined to do earlier this year.

Interestingly, none of the cities or unions that opposed the 2014 ballot propositions in court ever disclosed their expenses to the PDC. And while the AG took legal action against the Freedom Foundation, neither the AG nor the PDC have taken any action against the cities or unions.

The Freedom Foundation’s complaints against the cities of Chelan, Sequim and Shelton allege the cities violated the FCPA by failing to disclose legal expenses incurred while opposing placement of the propositions on the ballot. Further, the complaints argue the cities violated a state law prohibiting the use of public facilities for political purposes by having their respective city attorneys oppose the ballot propositions in court.

Similar complaints alleging a failure to disclose legal expenses involved in opposing the 2014 local ballot propositions were also filed against the three unions that participated in the litigation, Because the Freedom Foundation argued against the AG’s interpretation of the law, it previously filed no complaints against the cities or unions.

However, now that state courts have held that the FCPA requires the disclosure of legal expenses regarding whether local propositions may appear on the ballot, the law must be applied equally to all parties involved.

What she meant: “Because, after all, what’s more terrifying to a union than the idea of its mem- DOREEN KOCH Stanwood, Wash. bers being inFacebook post, formed of their Aug. 17, 2019 rights? We prefer the absolute safety of a world where only one point of view (ours) can be communicated and a worker’s only choice is to shut up and let us plunder his or her paycheck if they want to keep their job. Anything else is terrorism. Or Facism. Or Nazism.

Or whatever we say it is. ” n n n

She said: “ ‘Freedom” Foundation with a hash-tag ‘cancel hate.’ Color me purple, but isn’t free speech part of freedom, and promoting its own brand of hate contradictory to this foundation’s stand?”

She meant: “Promoting LAURIE BREMER hate would Elma, Wash. absolutely Facebook post, contradict Aug. 20, 2019 the Freedom Foundation’s core principles. The question is what constitutes hate and whether I can stifle every dissenting opinion just by giving it a label.” n n n

She said: “Dinesh D’Souza, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the Freedom Foundation crowd are trying to see how far they can stretch the right side of the racist right end of the bellshaped curve before it beCOHEN comes so thin it VERNICE Spokane, Wash. breaks off.”

Facebook post Sept. 4, 2019

She meant: “That’s why I and the rest of the left-union crowd will continue to brand as racist any individual or argument we can’t defeat on its actual merits.”

4

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

BANQUET Continued from Page 1 fighting for this,” Ingraham vowed.

“No part of this country is abandoned by the true causes of freedom.

Not this state, not Oregon, not California, not Colorado, not Connecticut. We’re all in this fight together.”

She continued, “Keep fighting.

I’m really proud of all of you for being here tonight.”

Ingraham, who had arrived the day before and toured Seattle’s homeless encampments, was especially impressed that the Freedom Foundation was able to accomplish what it has in the liberal enclaves of Washington, Oregon and California.

“You guys are amazing,” she told the crowd. “The fact that you guys are here in the Pacific Northwest ...

In Seattle, in Portland, in San Francisco ... You guys are fighting the good fight our founders fought for.

“We don’t have to pick up our muskets and go to battle,” Ingraham said. “But we do have to file lawsuits and go to court. If we don’t support groups like the Freedom Foundation, we might as well just call it a day and go home. It’s over.”

Ingraham said the left actually doesn’t actually represent a rigid ideology. In fact, liberals only care about power — and will say or do anything to acquire and maintain it.

“That’s where groups like the Freedom Foundation come into play,” she said. “If we just go about out business and think things will be OK without getting some skin in the game ourselves and making ourselves a little uncomfortable, they won’t be.”

Finally, Ingraham was openly dismissive of the protesters and union efforts earlier in the week to discredit her by circulating fliers accusing her — and the Freedom Foundation of racism.

“You get hate mail? Big deal,” she said. “A flier? That’s the best you’ve got? Bring it on. As (President) Trump would say, ‘Go back to mommy and daddy.’ ” Only one local TV station, KING5, in fact, sent a crew to cover the protest, and its report included a pair of quotes from Freedom Foundation spokesperson Ashley Varner.

“The Freedom Foundation exists for only one purpose,” she said. “And that is to help people who do not want to be in a union leave their union.”

In response, Nicole Grant of the Martin Luther King Jr. County Labor Council, could only mouth union talking points.

“The Freedom Foundation represents the richest people in our economy,” she said. “Really, what they’re trying to do is make sure people make less so that corporations can make more.”

In order to protect the safety of guests and staff members, security was a major priority and none of the protesters was able to infiltrate the event.

Perhaps if they had, they might have discovered that the Freedom Foundation targets only public-sector unions and its mission has nothing whatever to do with corporations.

The question is: Would it have mattered if they had known?

the

‘Right thing’ THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION’S 2019 BANQUET WAS A HUGE SUCCESS — DELIGHTING ATTENDEES AND INFURIATING THE UNION’S PROTESTERS

ABOVE: Special guest speaker Laura Ingraham was scintillating. BELOW: Union protesters provide comic relief.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

5

Freedom Foundation CEO Tom McCabe welcomes attendees to this year’s banquet and highlights just a few of the major successes achieved by the organization during the past year.

LEFT: Keynote speaker Laura Ingraham poses with Harmeet Dhillon, her college classmate at Dartmouth, a frequent guest on Ingraham’s TV show and a renowned civil rights attorney who has handled several lawsuits in California for the Freedom Foundation.

LEFT: Freedom Foundation Labor Policy Director Max Nelsen shares a laugh with guests prior to the banquet.

RIGHT: Freedom Foundation Outreach Director Matt Hayward visits with a pair of banquet attendees.

Guest speakers come and go, but the one constant at Freedom Foundation events is protests sponsored by unions whose bottom line is being decimated by its efforts to inform workers of their right to opt out of union dues and fees.

8

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

UNIONS AREN’T WHAT LABOR DAY HONORS

A

n article in the Sept. 1 issue Oregonian headlined “Labor disputes across Oregon heat up on Labor Day” was credited to reporter Jeff Manning. But organized labor leaders wouldn’t have gotten a more sympathetic treatment if they’d written it themselves.

Manning mentions in passing last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. ASFCME, which ended the practice of forced union dues — but only for workers in the public sector.

Janus merely underscores the fact that today’s unions — government unions are the best example — are more about them-

By MIKE NEARMAN, Oregon Director

selves, their growth and their political agenda than they are about the workers.

It’s no accident that Manning concedes “most disputes involve public employees,” though most of his examples come from the private sector.

Government unions — awakened from their long slumber by organizations like the Freedom Foundation, which works tirelessly to inform public employees

Oregon Update

Highlighting the successes being achieved by the Freedom Foundation’s office in the Beaver State.

about their newly affirmed rights — have finally figured out that, much to their chagrin, they do have to expend a little energy actually representing workers and not just playing politics on the leftist, unicorn fringe.

Manning’s explanation for the increase in labor unrest is that workers are fed up with “flat wages” and the “false promises of a trickle-down economy.”

More likely, increased labor activity is driven by a jaw clamping down on government unions: The upper jaw being management that, after years of overreach by unions, can no longer afford concessions if it is to provide public service and a lower jaw fueled by worker disgust with high dues (many public employees pay over $1,000 per year) that fund too little representation and too much left-leaning political activity, often contrary to the values of the workers.

Freed from the bondage of unions, which restrict pay and advancement based on seniority rather than competence, workers now find abundant opportunity in an economy where unemployment has shrunk to about 3.6 percent.

Far from being an environment in which “workers feel expendable and easily replaced,” workers — especially those with marketable skills, a strong work ethic or both — have little trouble finding lucrative employment amidst a field of help wanted signs.

Here at the Freedom Foundation, we will continue to inform public employees they have a First Amendment right to free speech and association, and that they no longer must pay dues to a union more concerned with its own welfare and political agenda than it is the workplace concerns of those paying for it all.

SEIU 503 ENDORSES LAUGHABLE GREEN NEW DEAL

D

uring August, the AFL-CIO filed a ballot initiative that would restrict and limit the number of self-checkout kiosks in Oregon.

It’s no secret the actual concerns of their members take a back seat to leftist politics as far as government unions concerned. SEIU 503 proved this rule in spades by endorsing the Green New Deal — the harebrained scheme by which many prominent Democrats propose to have government assume control over virtually every sector of the U.S. economy under the guise of saving the planet from climate change.

Among its many consequences, the Green New Deal would: n drastically increase operating costs for business and agriculture; n raise prices on every conceivable consumer good; n embrace Socialist “basic income” programs; n give more power to labor unions; and, n eliminate air travel over time.

And that’s just the beginning. To put it mildly, the Green New Deal would have disastrous ramifications for our economy and society as a whole.

So why is one of Oregon’s largest government unions endorsing this program?

For starters, as highlighted by Ashley Varner, Freedom Foundation vice president of communications, the legislation would grow the size of government many times over.

And more employees mean more dues.

It would also prioritize unioniza-

By BOAZ DILLON, Policy Analyst

tion by instituting, “…the right of all workers to organize, unionize and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation and harassment.”

All of which would certainly benefit union leadership, but how would the rank-and-file members be impacted? Unless they’re somehow exempted from the devastation the Green New Deal would wreak on the world’s economy, they’ll be in a world of hurt.

Recently the Oregon State Legislature proposed House Bill 2020, which would impose “cap-and-trade” measures to reduce Oregon’s already infinitesimal carbon footprint.

Like the Green New Deal, House

Bill 2020 is also masquerading as a climate change bill when in reality it would have been a massive job killer.

Because of the bill’s potential consequences for the Beaver State’s economy, many Oregonians staunchly opposed it.

When compared to the Green New Deal, though, House Bill 2020 appears incredibly tame.

Still, SEIU 503 moved forward with endorsing the Green New Deal despite the repercussions it would have on Oregon workers and families. The union’s board of directions unanimously voted on endorsing the climate change legislation.

SEIU 503’s defunct leadership only has itself to blame for the recent influx of defectors following the Janus decision, and decisions like this are conclusive proof.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

9

BEST OF THE BLOG UNION SABER-RATTLING SHOWS WHY BARGAINING TRANSPARENCY NEEDED AUG. 29, 2019

L

ike public employees in most Washington school districts, bus drivers, food service workers, office staff and classroom aides in the Dayton School District negotiate complicated terms of employment with the district leadership team.

The Seattle Education Association recently threatened a strike after getting a 10.5 percent pay raise last year. The Kennewick teachers union, likewise, has disrupted the start of school for children with its pay demands.

Meanwhile, teachers in Toutle Lake School District have blocked the state’s “paramount duty” to educate children because of their pay demands this year despite a 17 percent raise last year.

Teachers are also threatening a strike against the families of Ellensburg and LaCenter.

What do they want? How does it impact other services the districts provide? What other tradeoffs are offered at the bargaining table?

Individuals, families, taxpayers, other district employees and even union members commonly do not know given the absurd custom of making these critical budget-busting decisions behind closed doors.

But bargaining reaches beyond just salaries and budget priorities.

The Seattle Education Association has previously negotiated in favor of more than 100 individuals receiving a $2,500 stipend to be part of some schools’ “Racial Equity Teams.”

Other districts negotiate away the ability of the district to get community volunteer help with projects or activities.

Some even negotiate to add hurdles to parent visits to their children’s classrooms.

Any school board could enlist the public to help consider the full ramifications of unreasonable bargaining table demands by adopting a transparency policy to allow the observation, livestreaming or immediate document disclosure of proceedings.

In the Pullman School District, WEA and

By JAMI LUND, Senior Policy Analyst

board representatives have negotiated their teachers’ union contract in the open, and the sky didn’t fall.

In Oregon, where observed bargaining is the law, the school directors’ association representative reports that openness starts bargaining closer to compromise since extremes and stalling tactics are harder to explain to the public.

Further, the union tactic of deceiving the public about the elements of dispute and vilifying a district leadership team are removed by adding transparency – any bad actors on the management team are on display, but so are misstatements by the union.

The Washington Education Association has made opposition to a transparency policy a litmus test for its support of school board candidates.

In this election cycle, half of the school board positions in the state are up for election.

Among the questions to ask school board candidates is what they think about permitting observed or livestreamed bargaining.

SEPT. 6, 2019

A

Bankrolled by billionaires and wealthy families, the Freedom Foundation is pouring millions of dollars into its campaign to convince workers to “opt out” of paying union dues.

Their goal, to bankrupt the labor movement, is part of a larger agenda that includes gutting wage and anti-discrimination laws, worker and environmental protections, taxes on the wealthy, and more. OWLS will be at the picket to “welcome” donors of this reactionary group.

UNIONS & THE PARTICIPATION TROPHY PARADOX friend of mine this week posted a meme on Facebook that observed, “I’m so old I remember when you had to actually win something to get a trophy.”

I couldn’t agree more enthusiastically with his point. I just find it ironic he should be the one making it, given that nowadays my friend is a proud and outspoken defender of an institution that embodies all the principles he claims to loathe.

He belongs to a labor union.

Mike (not his real name) and I go back to the sixth grade, when we both earned actual trophies as members of a pee-wee football juggernaut that went undefeated on its way to a county championship.

Later, we were reunited on several high school football and basketball teams that, to put it kindly, generated more sympathy than hardware for anyone’s mantel.

These days my exchanges with Mike tend to focus more on our shared past than the different perspectives on organized labor that define our present. Consequently, I don’t think I’ll confront him directly about his meme.

Still, the paradox is striking. Mike bemoans a culture that no longer rewards individual excellence and openly discourages the sacrifice and hard work necessary for success by making no dis-

Unions carefully planned ‘spontaneous protest’

By JEFF RHODES, Managing Editor

tinction between winning and losing.

But isn’t that precisely what unions like his exist to do?

Exceptional workers earn no more for their labors than their mediocre peers. Meanwhile, the lazy and incompetent are shielded from consequence by union leaders for whom productivity is completely irrelevant so long as the worker continues to receive a paycheck from which dues can be extracted.

Everyone gets a trophy.

In the real world — where at least 85 percent of American workers aren’t represented by a union that can either bully or corrupt its way to higher wages on their behalf — results still matter, and youngsters are done no service by politically correct edicts that bring the top down rather than the bottom up.

Mike’s seemingly conflicting views perfectly illustrate the Faustian Bargain with which all unionized workers must come to terms. From the outside, it’s easy enough to warn someone else about the cracks in the foundation of their dwelling, but it’s far harder for someone already comfortably ensconced on the inside to see the rot eroding his own castle.

See you there.

ORGANIZED WORKERS FOR LABOR SOLIDARITY n

n

n

Groups are lining up to protest the annual fundraising dinner of the anti-union group Freedom Foundation, which features Fox News host Laura Ingraham this year.

MLK Labor, the Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO, and Seattle Indivisible are among the groups planning to counter the event outside the Hyatt Regency Bellevue tomorrow. Judy Kuschel is president of the Washington Federation of State Employees and says members of her organization will be there as well.

PUBLIC NEWS SERVICE Sept. 20, 2019 n

n

n

The extreme anti-union Freedom Foundation continues to push the boundaries into the fringes. They’ve invited white supremacist and Fox News talking head Laura Ingraham as the keynote for their annual dark-money fundraiser.

The Bellevue Hyatt has received hundreds of emails asking them to cancel Ingraham’s appearance, but has taken no action. So come out to protest and tell the Freedom Foundation and the Hyatt Regency Bellevue that hate has no place in Washington State.

SEATTLE INDIVISIBLE Sept. 20, 2019

10

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

FREEDOM IN ACTION EVEN ON LABOR DAY, UNIONS STILL WORKING TO SUPPRESS WORKERS’ FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

By TYLER O’NEIL Reprinted from PJ MEDIA Sept. 2, 2019

T

oday, Americans enjoy a day off of work to celebrate Labor Day, a holiday commemorating the organized labor movement. Unions did indeed secure important rights for American workers, including the idea of a weekend including Saturday and Sunday.

Yet organized labor is horrifically corrupt today. Workers who refuse to join a union because they disagree with the union’s political stance were forced to pay fees to the union anyway — that is, until the Supreme Court defended workers’ free speech last year.

Now, unions and their political allies are fighting to prevent workers from leaving the unions and from opting out of paying fees.

A new report from the Commonwealth Foundation revealed that government unions and their political allies are pushing legislation across the country that cements unions’ power to compel workers to support their political agendas. Many workers have resorted to filing lawsuits in order to escape the unions’ grasp.

“This report warns that a Supreme Court decision is in danger of being undermined by politically savvy actors at the state level,” Charles Mitchell, president and CEO for the Commonwealth Foundation, explained in a statement. “Advocates for workers cannot rest on their laurels and expect public employees’ newly restored rights to be respected.

States must pass laws that enforce and protect the Janus ruling.”

In Janus v. AFSCME (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court defended the free speech of Mark Janus, an Illinois child support staffer who refused to join the local union, AFSCME Council 31.

While he did not have to pay dues, the union still forced him to pay “agency fees” — a large portion of union dues — on the theory that he benefits from the union’s bargaining.

Janus objected, saying he did not want to support the union financially. He argued, “This is a gross violation of my First Amendment Rights to free speech and freedom of association.”

AFSCME defended the agency fees, insisting they were not political. Yet AFSCME Council 31 spent $268,855 for “convention expense” in 2016, taking this from the funds gathered by “non-political” agency fees.

The AFSCME convention in 2016 featured a lengthy “AFSCME for Hillary” program, complete with a Hillary Clinton speech.

On the very first day of the convention, the union’s president led attendees in booing Donald Trump.

On the third day, the convention adjourned early so members could participate in a “Trump Hotel Direct Action” protest march.

The convention even chartered buses for the protest.

It gets worse, however. Mandatory “agency fees” actually forced one woman to effectively contribute money used to attack her husband’s political campaign. Deborah Nearman, a public employee in Oregon, refused to join SEIU 503 because she opposes the union’s political positions — Nearman is a pro-life Catholic and the SEIU 503 funds pro-choice candidates.

In 2016, the SEIU forced her to pay $1,258.91. She fought to opt out and received

Courtesy of the Commonwealth Foundation

a refund of $273.68. That year, her husband, Mike Nearman, ran for state representative.

He won the election, but the union spent $53,260 against him.

The union also ran political ads against him his wife described as “disgusting.” (Last month, Mike Nearman joined the Freedom Foundation as its Oregon state director.)

As an aside, SEIU 503 recently endorsed the radical Green New Deal, which aims to change the entire economy and would cost at least $250,000 per household in the first five years.

Because unions can no longer force nonmembers to pay “agency fees,” organized labor has lost a great deal of money. Many union members who reluctantly joined the union since they would have to pay fees anyway are also choosing to leave, now that they have the option of refusing to pay any money at all.

According to the Freedom Foundation, unions in California, Oregon and Washington state lost approximately 25,000 members in the first six months after Janus, which will bleed them about $20 million per year.

By September 2019, the Freedom Foundation had helped more than 55,000 government employees leave their unions and stop paying dues.

Unions responded with a legislative blitz, and more than 100 pro-union bills were introduced this year, attempting to maintain the unions’ stranglehold over workers.

According to the Commonwealth Foundation, 21 states earned a “D” or “F” grade for worker freedom. These states either: n provide non-member fee workarounds; n expand union privileges like taxpayer-funded union work; n provide employees’ private information to unions to facilitate organizing; n unionize new classes of workers without their knowledge or consent; or, n require automatic dues collection using a public resource.

In response, workers have filed more than 70 Janus-related lawsuits seeking to escape unions and recoup mandatory agency fees.

Nearly half of these have been filed in California and Pennsylvania.

“More workers are realizing their union’s leadership is acting for themselves rather than for workers,” Mitchell noted. “Our friends and neighbors in public service

shouldn’t have to sue to have the same rights as you and I. This report highlights the need for lawmakers across the country to rise above union executives’ resources and influence and prioritize what’s best for workers.”

Last week, the National Right to Work Foundation filed a class-action lawsuit against Gov. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) for enforcing restrictions created by AFSCME Council 11 attempting to keep state employees from stopping union dues payments.

The union only allows workers to opt out of paying during a brief “escape period” once every three years at the end of the union’s bargaining contract.

AFSCME 11 is preventing tens of thousands of state workers from escaping the forced endorsement of the union’s political speech.

“Over a year ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public employees’ financial support of union activities must be completely voluntary, but the state of Ohio continues to enforce illegal union policies that violate the clear standards laid out in the Janus decision,” said Mark Mix, president of the Nation al Right to Work Foundation. “Gov. DeWine and Attorney General Yost should move quickly to stop this widespread violation of the First Amendment rights of Ohio public-sector workers and cease collecting union dues from any worker who has not affirmatively consented to pay dues.”

Most of the growing unions are public-sector unions, representing government employees against local, state and national governments.

Both Janus and Nearman were government employees in such unions.

Even the notoriously liberal President Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed the idea of public-sector unions because they involve bargaining against the American people.

Unions played an important role in American history, but their current activism is corrupt. Not only do the major unions overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, but they also are fighting tooth and nail to prevent workers from expressing their First Amendment rights to opt out of supporting their political positions.

Whatever their political views, Americans should oppose the corruption of these unions.

Workers should not be compelled to donate funds to political causes they oppose.

LIVING LIBERTY

|

A PUBLI CATION OF THE FREED OM FOU NDATION

11

FREEDOM IN THE NEWS TRANSPARENCY RESOLUTION RULING LEAVES LINCOLN COUNTY IN ‘UNCHARTED TERRITORY’

By TJ MARTINELL Reprinted from LENS Sept. 6, 2019

T

he Lincoln County commissioners have announced they will appeal a county Superior Court ruling upholding a Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) decision regarding its 2016 resolution to open collective bargaining talks to the public.

The commissioners in 2016 voted to open collective bargaining negotiations with union leaders to the public. Three years later, the county is still embroiled in a legal battle with the only local public union refusing to negotiate with the county in an open meeting, and the case is now headed for the Division III Court of Appeals.

The commissioners this week appealed a recent Lincoln County Superior Court ruling that upheld a previous Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) decision citing unfair labor practice by both sides.

Commissioner Scott Hutsell told Lens that while “we’re right back where we were,” he added they’re also in “uncharted territory” because they have not bargained with Teamsters 690 for more than two years. That is beyond the time allotted by state law for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to be finalized.

“There is a question of whether we have one or not,” he said. “We are still treating it like they (Teamsters 690) do have one.”

Representing Lincoln County commissioners in the lawsuit is the Freedom Foundation.

The oprganization’s chief litigation counsel, Eric Stahlfeld, said “local, elected representatives — including the commissioners — clearly have the right to open their meetings to the constituency they serve. If the unions want to keep their own members in the dark, that’s between the leaders and the people who pay the dues. But the taxpayers deserve transparency, and we’re here to see they get it.”

The legal fight kicked off after the commissioners passed the resolution and attempted to conduct bargaining talks publicly in February 2017. The Teamsters 690 refused to bargain, and the county filed an unfair labor practice with PERC. However, PERC’s ruling left the situation unresolved by arguing that the county couldn’t demand the meetings be public, while the union couldn’t demand the meetings be private.

Although Washington has a very strong open public meeting law, a 1990 Washington court decision allows state and local governments to choose whether the public can attend collective bargaining negotiations.

Lincoln County was the first jurisdiction in Washington to open talks to the public, and since then other counties such as Ferry and Kittitas have followed suit. However, similar lawsuits have not been filed there by local unions. Schools district boards such as Pullman have also made their bargaining talks public.

IN PRINT

SEPT. 5, 2019

SEPT. 1, 2019

UNIONS: GROWING GAP BETWEEN ‘HAVES’ AND ‘HAVE NOTS’ DRIVING STRIKE ACTIVITY

‘THINK TANK’ FILES CLAIM “The Freedom Foundation, which bills itself as a “free-market think tank,” claims the city of Shelton violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act by failing to disclose its legal expenses while opposing a proposed ballot measure to make union dues payments optional and to allow the public to attend union member contract negotiations. ” ONLINE

ONLINE

At the state level, a 2002 law exempts from the open meetings law bargaining negotiations between the state Office of Financial Management (OFM) acting on behalf of the governor and public union representatives.

An initiative filed last year would have overridden the 1990 court ruling and required all bargaining talks be made public, but I-608 failed to garner enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Proponents of open talks argue that secret negotiations leave taxpayers who foot the bill for any increased wages or benefits in the dark as to whether or not elected officials and union reps are making fair demands.

A 2016 legal brief filed by President Obama’s Department of Justice noted that there was “near-consensus” among accountability workgroups to the Seattle Police Department for “possible modifications to the collective bargaining process to enhance the transparency of union negotiations.”

The report also noted “The Department of Justice and other parties involved in Seattle Police reforms actually favor more disclosure during contract negotiations.”

Also in support of open labor talks is Washington Coalition for Open Government President Toby Nixon.

He told Lens that “Labor costs make up the largest single portion of the budget of just about any agency. I think the public should be able to be aware of what’s going on, because it’s the public’s money that’s proposed to be spent.

“My experience,” Nixon said, “is that the labor union leaders are usually more radical than the members themselves in terms of their demands and those kinds of things.”

Sept. 3, 2019

PROPOSED 2020 BALLOT MEASURE COULD LIMIT SELF-CHECKOUT MACHINES “It doesn’t appear that Oregon’s major grocery store chains have weighed in on this ballot measure yet, though that group has flexed its political muscle in other recent campaigns. But the Freedom Foundation, a West Coast conservative non-profit and think tank, was critical of the measure in a recent blog post.”

“ ‘Strike activity tends to pick up when the economy is doing better, and it tends to diminish when the economy is not doing so well,’ said Maxford Nelsen, director of labor policy for the Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based free-market think tank. ‘That’s because there’s a perception that a good economy means there is more money, so unions are “more confident in their ability to win concessions for their members.’ ” ONLINE

Sept. 10, 2019

UNION ORGANIZING EMAILS MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE AFTER STATE HIGH COURT RULING “The Freedom Foundation has argued that emails about faculty organizing likely do relate to government functions because the messages are apt to discuss issues like working conditions and the role the state plays as an employer and educator. In their opinion, the Supreme Court judges were receptive to this argument. ‘We agree that many of these emails likely relate to government conduct,’ the opinion said.”

12

LIVING LIBERTY

|

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

ACTION TIMELINE

banning mandatory union dues and fees in the public workplace.

Sept. 21

SPOTLIGHTING SOME OF THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION’S NOTEWORTHY MILESTONES DURING THE PAST MONTH

Sept. 3 Lincoln County’s Board of Commissioners marks the day after Labor Day by filing an appeal to ensure open and transparent contract negotiations with the unions representing the community’s public employees. In 2016, the commissioners adopted a resolution based on a model developed by the Freedom Foundation promising to hold future collective bargaining sessions in an open public forum. Teamsters Local 690 responded by filing an unfair labor practices complaint, which the commissioners — represented by attorneys from the Freedom Foundation — challenged in Lincoln County Superior Court. A watered-down ruling at that level prompts the commissioners to take their case to the Court of Appeals.

Sept. 9 The Freedom Foundation hands the state’s public-sector unions a devastating setback in a landmark public records case, winning a unan-

imous ruling in the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involves a cache of emails and other documents requested by the Freedom Foundation in 2015 from four University of Washington professors relating to efforts to unionize the school’s faculty. UW officials agreed the information was a matter of public record and were poised to hand it over. But SEIU 925 objected to its activities being exposed, so its attorneys sought — and obtained — a restraining order in Superior Court preventing UW from complying with the lawful request. The order was later upheld in Appellate Court, too, but on Sept. 9 the Supreme Court overturned both courts’ rulings.

Sept. 13 The Freedom Foundation joins with a broad coalition of free-market public organizations across the country to oppose a massive giveaway to unions Congressional Democrats are calling the “Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.” The measure is specifically designed to make up for union membership losses in the wake of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME

Best-selling author, syndicated radio host and Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham is the keynote speaker at the Freedom Foundation’s annual banquet at the Hyatt Regency in Bellevue.

As is the case every year, the event was accompanied by a chaotic, union-organized protest on the sidewalk outside the hotel.

Sept. 26 In a recent State of Our Union speech, former Oregon State Education Assocition President Tim Stoelb boasted that the union represents approximately 23,000 employees. According to a just-released LM-2 report, however, his union has only 15,130 dues-paying members.

Throw in the number of opt-outs recorded by the Freedom Foundation since the report was filed, and OSEA has experienced a membership decline of at least 36 percent since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling last year in Janus v. AFSCME. These are among the most dramatic results in the nation and a clear indication of how disgruntled union workers, as well as a strong validation of the Freedom Foundation’s outreach efforts to them.

This is what

Success Looks Like & This is what

Failure Looks Like

Don’t Be Those Guys