The cover story of the hot-off-the-press November-December issue of Foundation Action recaps the exciting oral arguments of the Foundation's Locke v. Karass case, which was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in early October.

Read the whole story here (pdf) and sign up today for a free print subscription.

To receive the entire issue via email, just type your email address into the box in the top right corner of this page.

This article from the September/October issue of Foundation Action discusses the June 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States Chamber of Commerce v. Jerry Brown.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed arguments, with which the Supreme Court agreed, to overturn a controversial California law that pressured companies to assist in coercive union organizing drives.

Read the whole story here (pdf) and sign up today for a free print subscription.

To receive the entire issue via email, just type your email address into the box in the top right corner of this page.

The September/October issue of Foundation Action reports on the rare U.S. Supreme Court rebuke of Bush Administration lawyers seeking to argue before the High Court in the October 6, 2008 oral arguments of Locke v. Karass.

Foundation attorneys successfully argued that the Bush Administration had no business getting involved in the proceedings.

Read the whole story here (pdf) and sign up today for a free print subscription.

To receive the entire issue via email, just type your email address into the box in the top right corner of this page.

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).

Oral arguments in Locke v. Karass, the Foundation's latest Supreme Court case, occur on Monday, October 6. Just in time, the October issue of Labor Watch features a cover story on the case by Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation:

The U.S. Supreme Court has so far refused to recognize that all compulsory union dues, no matter how they are spent, violate workers’ First Amendment rights and that no compelling state interest exists to justify subverting these rights. However, the Court has concluded that forced union dues for certain union expenditures violates nonmembers’ First Amendment rights. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have established that union officials cannot compel nonmembers to support union lobbying, political activities and other forms of ideological expression.

On behalf of Daniel Locke and 19 other current and former Maine state employees, NRTW Foundation attorneys will argue this month that because litigation is also inherently expressive, unions cannot compel nonmembers to pay for it. Moreover, because litigation regarding a union’s affiliates in another state does not affect the union’s own collective bargaining process, there should be a bright line drawn to ensure that no extra-unit litigation is ever subsidized by objecting nonmembers.

Union lawyers insist workers must pay for litigation activities that unions undertake outside their own bargaining unit using a pooling arrangement that union bosses analogize to insurance. If union bosses get their way, unions will be permitted to seize dues from members and nonmembers alike – even from employees who never wanted a union’s “representation” – and pool them together in a giant slush fund to subsidize Big Labor’s lawsuit machine.

Read the full article online (PDF only).

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.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court just struck down (pdf) a biased California statute that prevented companies who received state grants from sharing accurate information about unions with their employees. Foundation attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief in support of overturning the Ninth Circuit's flawed reasoning.

The Foundation's press release is now available online. Money quote:

Had the Ninth Circuit’s ruling not been overturned, employees of companies accepting funds from the state would be denied truthful information regarding the downsides of unionization. Employers could have ultimately been blackballed from government contracts unless they cleared the path for union organizers to recruit new forced dues-paying union members.

The Foundation's amicus brief is also availble online (pdf). Union lawyers argued the California law was intended to ensure "neutrality" in the workplace, but the argument rang hollow, as Foundation attorneys pointed out (emphasis mine):

Assembly Bill No. 1889, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 16645.2 and 16645.7 (“AB 1889”), is the law at issue. It is a state labor regulation that has only one purpose and effect: to halt the free flow of non-coercive information from employers to their employees, so that unions may take advantage of the enforced silence and corral uninformed employees into unionization. AB 1889’s “gag rule” directly conflicts with the core of federal labor policy, which encourages the free flow of non-coercive information precisely so that employees can make an intelligent and fully informed decision to choose or reject unionization. Employees are the real victims of this misguided state effort to undo federal labor policy.

The Foundation's amicus brief goes on to explain why state-enforced "neutrality" agreements are heavily biased in favor of union organizers (emphasis mine):

AB 1889 [the California law] enables unions to demand and receive so-called “neutrality and card check” agreements, under which employees’ right to choose or reject unionization in a free and uncoerced manner is hampered. For example, most “neutrality and card check” agreements place a gag on employer speech, so that employees are unable to learn from their employer anything that may be unfavorable to the union. Moreover, such agreements typically provide unions with employees’ home addresses and other confidential information, so that union agents can make home visits and other potentially unwanted solicitations as a means to cajole or coerce employees to sign cards. Additionally, unions are often given physical access to the workplace to further pressure employees to sign the cards. Perhaps most egregious, most neutrality agreements waive NLRB-supervised secret-ballot elections and substitute the “card check” process, in which a signed authorization card counts as a “vote” for the union. Thus, the union acts to prevent employees from voting their consciences in a traditional secret-ballot election, even though experience shows that the process of soliciting union authorization cards often relies upon coercion and misrepresentations.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a concise write-up here. This passage highlights the court's key findings:

The court rejected arguments by California and labor unions that the state is entitled to restrict the use of its own funds in the workplace. Stevens said California was trying to regulate employer speech by requiring extensive record keeping, to ensure that no state funds were spent against unions, and by requiring businesses to pay the legal fees of unions and other private parties who successfully sued them for violations.

Unfortunately, this setback means that Big Labor is now more intent than ever on passing coercive "card-check" legislation. The Chronicle's article continues:

From a union perspective, he said, the case also highlights the importance of labor-backed legislation - passed by the House, but stalled in the Senate - that would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of employees signed affiliation cards.

While the Foundation's strategic litigation strategy continues to pay dividends, Big Labor's political clout and election year campaign plans could put our forces on the defensive more than ever come November.

In March, at the urging of the National Right to Work Foundation, the U.S. Supreme Court took up Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association. Now the Foundation has jointly filed an amicus curiae brief (pdf) in the case.

The High Court is reviewing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that says that Idaho's state law banning payroll deductions for union political expenditures (narrowly defined) can not apply to payroll deductions at the local government level. 

As the Foundation's brief explains, the Ninth Circuit's ruling wrongly forces Idaho taxpayers to subsidize union political activities by offering valuable payroll deduction services to union officials.

When the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would take the case, Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason noted "like state governments, local governments should not act as bagmen for union political funds."

And even more alarmingly should the Supreme Cout fail to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling, it will open the door for union lawyers to misuse the court's reasoning to launch fresh new attacks on state Right to Work laws as applied to local government bodies.

The Foundation's joined with the Utah Taxpayers Association, the Sutherland Institute, and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Center in filing the brief.

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.