From 11 to noon today the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Locke v. Karass, in which Foundation Staff Attorney Jim Young represented 20 Maine State employees challenging attempts by the SEIU union to charge the nonmembers for union litigation unrelated to their collective bargaining unit.

Here, lead plaintiff Daniel Locke takes questions from reporters flanked (left to right) by Former Maine State employee Mark Turek of UnfairShare.org, Foundation V.P. Stefan Gleason and Foundation Staff Attorney Jim Young:

For background on the case watch our video, which includes an exclusive interview with lead plaintiff Daniel Locke, and also see our Locke case page for all the legal briefs in the case. For a more detailed analysis of the case, this article (pdf) from Labor Watch is highly recommended.

UPDATE:
The transcript of today's Locke argument at the U.S. Supreme Court is now available for download (pdf).

Yesterday, SCOTUSblog reported on the opposition by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys to the Solicitor General's self-contradictory motion for divided arguments in the Foundation's Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case. (For more background on the SG's unwelcome machinations and the Foundation's principled opposition, read this post.)

The SCOTUSblog post brings to light this new tidbit of news: "Jeremiah Collins, a lawyer for the respondent, said the union did not plan to file an opposition."

Of course he won't. The Solicitor General is making Big Labor's legal arguments. Why not add another lawyer to the union legal team at taxpayer expense?

If the Solicitor General forces his way in, Foundation staff attorneys representing a group of Maine State employees may get 5 fewer minutes to argue their case. Looking at his misguided legal brief (which the union later cited 14 times in its own brief), there can be little doubt that the SG would use the time to make the union officials' case against the employees and the First Amendment.

As the Foundation attorneys' response makes clear, the Administration's interest in the case is extremely tenuous and far fetched, and under court rules it should therefore be barred from participation in oral arguments (as in similar situations in the past).

Welcome to Big Labor's anti-employee legal team, Mr. Solicitor General. Thank you very little.

In the latest update to Right to Work's YouTube channel, Daniel Locke, lead plaintiff in the Foundation's Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case, discusses why he felt the need to file suit against Maine State Employees Association union officials.

Also in the video, Foundation president Mark Mix explains what is at stake in the case, and another Maine state employee, Mark Turek, discusses his decision to quit his job rather than be forced to pay union dues to a union he disagreed with.

The Locke case is a perfect example of how the National Right to Work Foundation's legal aid program helps workers who have had their rights violated by compulsory unionism. Locke and his coworkers contacted the Foundation when they needed help standing up to union bosses.

Now, by taking the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Foundation attorneys are in a position not only to help Locke and his coworkers, but to help millions of American employees by establishing an important Supreme Court precedent advancing employee freedom.

The U.S. Supreme Court has set the date for oral argument in Locke v. Karass, which was brought to the High Court by Foundation attorneys on behalf of a group of Maine state employees.

Arguments will be at 11am on October 6, 2008 - the opening day of the the Supreme Court's session.

The case deals with the criteria for determining what workers can be forced to pay to a union as a job condition. For more on the Locke case stay tuned for an upcoming video.

Today's DC Examiner has an editorial about the Foundation's upcoming US Supreme Court case, Daniel Locke v. Karass.

Here's an excerpt from the editorial:

Locke is one of 20 Maine state employees who found that their compulsory agency fees to the Maine State Employees Association were being used to fund union lawsuits and bargaining in other states via a funding pool administered by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Locke and his like-minded colleagues objected to having to pay the fees because they knew the SEIU aggressively pushes a political agenda outside of Maine, including political campaigning, lobbying government at all levels, litigation against employers, media advocacy and other non-bargaining activities. Every dollar taken from Locke to pay for union litigation outside Maine freed up a dollar to be spent on SEIU’s political agenda.

Sounds like an open-and-shut case, right? After all, Thomas Jefferson said it was “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.” And just last year, the court ruled that public employee unions must first get permission from individual members before using their dues for political activities. Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember employees.”

But things are never so simple in the nation’s capital. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has submitted a brief in the case in which he argues that public employee unions can indeed use agency fees to pay their share of a litigation pool.

But, he says, doing so must further the government’s interest in keeping the peace in the workplace. He also says the union must give reasonable assurance that the pool doesn’t indirectly aid non-litigation activities.

In other words, as long as there is peace in the workplace and wink-winks from the union, President Bush’s solicitor general will be happy. And this president is anti-union?

Read the whole thing here.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top lawyer, has just inflicted more damage on America's working men and women laboring under compulsory unionism. Does President Bush even know what his administration's lawyer is doing?

This week, the too-clever-by-half lawyer filed a brief in the National Right to Work Foundation's latest pending U.S. Supreme Court case, Locke v. Karass, and has taken a position that surely must please the union bosses. The High Court in Locke will examine the criteria for determining how much non-union members must pay to a union where they do not enjoy the fundamental protection of a Right to Work law.

Foundation attorneys argue that the U.S. Constitution does not permit the forced extraction of dues or fees for any expenses not directly tied to representational activity in the employees' actual bargaining unit.

But Mr. Clement apparently has no issue with forcing Maine state workers to pay for union activism anywhere in the world, so long as the union satisfies a vague and weak two-part test. In practical terms, Clement's standard would further empower union bosses to charge workers for almost anything under the sun, unless a worker gets a lawyer and forces them to prove that the forced fees are being used for narrowly prescribed purposes.

This is not the first time that U.S. Solicitor General Clement has taken positions supportive of compulsory unionism. He adopted the AFL-CIO's position and seriously undermined employee freedom during oral argument in the Foundation's Davenport v. WEA case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

With "friends" like Bush's Solicitor General, who needs enemies?

And speaking of which, a Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial today highlights the National Right to Work Foundation's recent work at the U.S. Supreme Court. The paper notes of the Locke case the High Court took up yesterday:

"The case is the latest instance of the justices addressing issues that could erode the power of labor unions," noted The Associated Press.

Yet, if limiting the ability of organized labor to use coercion to fund its agenda erodes union power, it's power these groups never should have enjoyed in the first place.

Couldn't have put it better ourselves. The AP also notes that the Foundation's 14 U.S. Supreme Court cases have all been "targeting unions," but fails to mention that every single case was on behalf of employees that wanted nothing to do with them.

No one should be forced to join or pay dues to an unwanted union, and that principle is at the very heart of each case the Foundation takes up.

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme to take up the National Right to Work Foundation's Locke case on behalf of employees marks the Foundation's 14th trip to the High Court. Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason summed up the case this way:

“No one should be compelled to pay union dues just to get or keep a job. But where union officials have obtained this special
privilege from the legislature, they still have no legal authority to
make non-union public servants in Maine pay for union activity across America.”

The National Right to Work Foundation's most recent victory at the High Court came in 2007, under Davenport v. WEA, a crucial defensive victory. In that case, the Court ruled that union officials do not have a "constitutional right" to spend employees' forced union dues on political causes that they oppose.

Following up on last week's post, Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research spoke out last week against a recent executive order in Colorado extending union monopoly bargaining over state employees. (NRTW Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr. spoke at the event.)

According to an article in the Denver Business Journal:

Greer also said that even if legislators approve a law prohibiting
government workers from striking -- and Ritter signs it -- 48 percent
of public sector strikes are technically illegal, meaning that
legislation is not an effective deterrent against strikes.

"By all economic measures, Colorado would be better off without
forced dues and fees and everyone would be better off with right to
work laws."

How true- if strike prohibitions work, how did union officials shut down New York City just before Christmas in 2005" They didn't seem to mind the illegality of that strike. The imposition of forced union dues has also prompted state employees in Washington and Maine to fight back.

In an all too familiar scene, Nevada County employees in California are outraged at a recent union election they called "underhanded" and "sneaky," that now means they have to pay union dues or be fired.

"It left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. It was just kind of snuck in," said Mike Sherman, an employee in the welfare department who didn't hear of the election until after ballots were cast.

Similar groups of frustrated employees have formed grassroots groups opposed to forced union dues in Maine and Washington State in recent years. California, Maine, and Washington State all are without a Right to Work law which would make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.