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.

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.

Solicitor General Paul Clement resigned yesterday after seven years with the Bush Administration. As reported by Tony Mauro on the Legal Times blog, Right to Work advocates are thrilled to see him go:

"Paul Clement did not leave soon enough," said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in a statement. "He kicked the cause of employee freedom from compulsory unionism in the teeth once again before heading out the door."

Clement's latest offense against the right-to-work movement was a brief he filed with the Supreme Court May 12 in Locke v. Karass, which the Court will consider next term. The foundation is supporting 20 Maine state employees who object to their compulsory agency fees being used to fund nationwide union litigation far removed from the workers' local bargaining concerns. Clement's brief says it is constitutional for fees to be used in at least some kinds of pooling arrangements with other unions for litigation, though it suggests limits on the use. His brief can be found here.

The standard Clement uses is not good enough, says Gleason, who asks on his blog "Is Bush's Top Lawyer Taking Orders from Big Labor?" He says Clement has been soft on unions in past right-to-work cases as well.

No word yet on the reason for Clement's departure. But it was none too soon for rank-and-file workers under Big Labor's thumb. Clement joins the ranks of other ex-Bush administration officials -- such as DOL's former General Counsel Andrew Siff -- who used their positions to deliver goodies to the union bosses.

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?

Adding the a string of cases supported by the National Right to Work Foundation, the U.S. Supreme Court took up another case Monday. At issue is whether a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that limited the applicability of an Idaho state law banning payroll deductions for union Political Action Committees (PACs) will stand. Foundation attorneys urged the High Court to take up the case alongside the Sutherland Institute and Utah Taxpayers Association.

Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason told the AP earlier this week that:

"Payroll deduction should not be a constitutionally protected right. We feel it's bad public policy to have government bodies essentially be bagmen for union political monies."

To read the full article, click here. To read more about the Foundation's Supreme Court track record, click here.

Read all about the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation's upcoming 14th U.S. Supreme Court battle on behalf State of Maine employees led by Mr. Dan Locke (pictured) in the March/April edition of Foundation Action, available first here today.

To sign up for a free hard copy version of this bi-monthly newsletter, sign up here. And to sign up for regular email updates on the battle against compulsory unionism, sign up on our home page.

Finally, don't forget to check out all the latest videos on the Right to Work YouTube channel.