announced it would hear Friedrichs inJune, the Foundation’s public informa-tion staff has countered union-bosspropaganda in the press by informing

FoundationActionFoundationAction

Vol. XXXV, No. 6 8001 Braddock Road • Springfield, Virginia 22160 www.nrtw.org November/December 2015

The bi-monthly newsletter of the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

WASHINGTON, DC - When theUnited States Supreme Court opened its2015-2016 term in September, legalobservers, commentators, and punditsfrom across the political spectrumpointed to Friedrichs v. CaliforniaTeachers Association as one of the mostpivotal and highly-watched cases theCourt will consider this year.

Now, thousands of Right to Worksupporters have prompted 18 stateattorneys-general to sign on to aSupreme Court brief opposing public-sector forced unionism.

“It speaks to the effectiveness of theNational Right to Work Foundation’sprograms that not only is the HighCourt now taking a serious look at pro-tecting freedom of association, one ofthe most vital rights in our constitution-al republic, but that members of thepress, the public, and elected officialsnationwide recognize the importance ofthe issue,” said Foundation PresidentMark Mix.

The case, brought by the Center forIndividual Rights for several nonunionCalifornia public school teachers, buildscompletely on the Foundation’s legalvictories in Harris v. Quinn and Knox v.SEIU. In both cases, the Supreme Courtquestioned the constitutionality ofmandatory public-sector union dues.

Foundation staff attorneys recentlyfiled an amicus curiae (“friend of thecourt”) brief in the case, arguing thatcivil servants should not be forced topay union dues simply because union

officials have chosen to bargain for allemployees – nonunion and union alike– in a given workplace.

In the brief, Foundation staff attor-neys also lay bare union lawyers’ faultylegal reasoning by showing how “exclu-sive representation” actually confersenormous benefits on union officials,who are empowered to negotiate withthe state and receive tremendous influ-ence in the workplace, and thereforehave no justification for collectingmandatory monetary contributionsfrom nonunion civil servants.

Outreach builds support

Meanwhile, as public attention hasbeen drawn to the issue since the Court

See RIGHT TO WORK SUPPORTERS page 7

Foundation Spurs State Attorneys-General to Defend Worker FreedomConcerned citizens’ action makes a direct impact on forced-dues challenge at Supreme Court

Thanks to the efforts of Right to Work supporters, 18 state attorneys-generalhave signed on to a brief opposing forced dues in the public sector.

IN THIS ISSUE

Foundation Fights Push to ImposeForced Unionism on “SharingEconomy”

Foundation Attorneys HelpEmployees Fight to RemoveUnwanted Union

Golden State Employees FightUnion Bosses’ Forced-DuesSchemes

23456

Featured Commentary: “A Chance to Make Union Dues a Choice”

Driver Who Suffered DiscriminationFinally Receives Back Pay

2 Foundation Action November/December 2015

Rev. Fred Fowler Chairman, Board of TrusteesPatrick Semmens Vice President and Editor-in-ChiefRay LaJeunesse, Jr. Vice President and Legal DirectorMark Mix President

The Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employeeswhose human or civil rights have been violated by abuses of compulsory unionism. All contributions

to the Foundation are tax deductible under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Distributed by theNational Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160www.nrtw.org • 1-800-336-3600

Foundation Action

WASHINGTON, DC – Despite the bestefforts of union lawyers, Teamster Local509 union officials are finally paying aworker more than $55,000 in back payhe lost when they prevented him fromgetting work.

In early October, the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit affirmed a NationalLabor Relations Board (NLRB) decisionawarding back pay to ABC employeeThomas Coghill. Faced with a longshotappeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,Teamsters Local 509 bosses will finallyfork over the money, plus interest, fordiscriminatory practices they commit-ted in 2009.

“It’s been a long fight,” said PatrickSemmens, vice president of the NationalRight to Work Foundation. “After sixyears, Thomas Coghill will finallyreceive the pay he was denied by dis-criminatory monopoly union policies.”

Long legal battle pays off

The decision by union lawyers not toattempt another longshot appeal ends aprolonged legal battle between Coghilland South Carolina Teamster bosses.

The case began when Coghill, a driverfor ABC Studios, filed unfair labor prac-tice charges in 2009.

Teamster Local 509 union officialshad a monopoly bargaining agreementwith ABC in South Carolina that forcedworkers to go through the union’s hiringhall to get a job during production of theABC show “Army Wives.” Coghill – amember of a different Teamster local –was hired during the show’s first twoseasons after demand for drivers out-

paced the number of workers that Local509 could refer.

However, as more Local 509 unionmembers became available to work onthe production of “Army Wives,”Teamster officials refused to referCoghill again because he was not aLocal 509 member, and rejected hisrequest to transfer his membership.

Coghill’s charges contested theunion’s policy on the grounds that feder-al labor law prohibits union officialsfrom discriminating against nonunionemployees. At the NLRB, National Rightto Work Foundation staff attorneyshelped Coghill recoup more than$55,000 in back pay, a judgment that theunion has now grudgingly accepted.

“My advice to anyone in this situationis to know your rights and seek helpfrom the appropriate source,” saidCoghill. “I would also like to acknowl-edge W. James Young from NationalRight to Work for [his] hard work anddilligence arguing this case.”

Case puts the spotlight onFoundation’s legal program

Although Coghill eventually forcedTeamster bosses to compensate him forlost wages, many employees are unableto fight discriminatory union practices.Navigating the court system or theNLRB bureaucracy is a dauntingprospect for full-time workers who don’thave the legal expertise or the time totake union lawyers head-on.

“The National Right to WorkFoundation’s legal aid program has theresources and wherewithal to fightunion abuse at every level, from theNLRB to the Supreme Court,” saidSemmens. “Thomas Coghill’s long fightto reclaim his lost wages highlights theimportance of our attorneys’ work forunion-abused employees.”

A driver for the ABC Studios show“Army Wives” has finally receivedcompensation for work he wasdenied under a discriminatory unionpolicy.

Driver Who Suffered Union Discrimination Finally Receives Back PayAfter six years, Teamster bosses are forced to pay for preventing nonmember from working

November/December 2015 Foundation Action 3

In recent Congressional testimony,Glenn Taubman, a veteran Foundationstaff attorney, cited numerous instancesin which the Board has delayed orblocked union decertification drives onspurious grounds. Said Taubman: “TheNLRB has created aggressive proceduresto speed up certification elections andhelp unions get into power, but ignoresblocking charges and election bars thathinder or completely deny employees’ability to decertify the union.”

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneyshave been involved in several otherworker-led efforts to remove unwantedunions. In one recent episode, workersat a Hamilton, Alabama ball bearingplant had to vote on removing a unionfive times before UAW officials werefinally forced to relinquish their monop-oly bargaining privileges. Thanks to thetimely intervention of Right to Workstaff attorneys, the employees wereeventually able to eject the UAW, butthey had to clear numerous bureaucrat-ic hurdles before the NLRB upheld theirvote.

Union lawyers have become particu-larly adept at gaming the NLRB’s rulesand regulations to hamper union decer-tification drives. Regular readers mayremember that the last issue ofFoundation AAccttiioonn reported on a uniondecertification drive led by an Orlando-based Golf Channel employee. Ratherthan leave gracefully, union officialsasked the NLRB to dismiss the entireprocess over a few minor issues with theemployee’s paperwork.

“The Obama National LaborRelations Board has been a boon forstubborn labor bosses,” said LaJeunesse.“Independent-minded workers, on theother hand, often face an uphill battle toremove unwanted unions. That’s why itis vital they have the National Right toWork Foundation to turn to for freelegal assistance.”

moved to intervene in the dispute overthe company’s alleged unfair labor prac-tice charges. If granted intervenor sta-tus, Lynch and Grant will, through theirFoundation-provided attorneys, be ableat trial to represent their own interests,and those of the majority of employeeswho oppose the UAW. They will havethe ability to testify, call and examinewitnesses, and present legal and factualarguments to protect their and otheremployees’ rights to eject an unwantedunion.

NLRB favors union bosses

“Once again, the NLRB is favoringunion bosses’ privileges over the rightsof independent-minded employees,”said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president ofthe National Right to Work Foundation.“Unfortunately, this is far from an isolat-ed incident. The Board has delayed andeven blocked employee-led uniondecertification drives repeatedly.”

The NRLB has frequently resorted tobureaucratic and legal stalling tactics tokeep unwanted unions in place. Lynchand Grant’s experience with the UAW isjust the latest example of this trend.

Foundation Attorneys Help Employees Fight to Remove Unwanted UnionBiased NLRB tries to block employee vote to oust unwanted UAW officials FLORENCE, SC – Two workers at aJohnson Controls battery plant inFlorence, South Carolina, have filed amotion to intervene with the NationalLabor Relations Board (NLRB) in anongoing case involving a union they andtheir coworkers wish to remove fromtheir workplace. The two employees,Brenda Lynch and Anna Marie Grant,are receiving free legal assistance fromNational Right to Work Foundationstaff attorneys.

Lynch and Grant’s case highlights thedifficulties employees face whenattempting to remove an unwantedunion, as well as the Obama NLRB’spersistent bias in favor of union bosses’workplace privileges.

In early September, the NLRBGeneral Counsel issued a formal com-plaint against Johnson Controls regard-ing its Florence plant. The complaintalleged that the company committed anunfair labor practice by withdrawingrecognition of UAW Local 3066 as theemployees’ monopoly bargaining agent.

The company withdrew recognitionafter a majority of workers submitted apetition declaring that they no longerwanted the union’s so-called “represen-tation.” The NLRB General Counsel,however, deemed the withdrawal peti-tion invalid and demanded that thecompany restore the UAW’s privilegedbargaining position.

In response to these developments,Lynch, who helped organize the with-drawal initiative with several of hercoworkers, submitted to the NLRB apetition for a secret ballot election toformally remove the union. Rather thanhold a secret ballot vote to determineemployees’ wishes, the NLRB, at theUAW’s urging, blocked the election, cit-ing the pending complaint against thecompany.

With the help of Foundation staffattorneys, Lynch and Grant have since

The Obama Labor Board has consis-tently stymied employee-led effortsto removed unwanted unions fromtheir workplaces.

4 Foundation Action November/December 2015

MARK MIX: A Chance to Make Union Dues a ChoiceThe Gilded Age. The Spoils System. Tammany Hall. InAmerican politics, corrupt bargains between politicians andtheir supporters are supposed to be a thing of the past. But inthe public sector, a troubling relationship persists betweenelected officials and one powerful constituency.

Thanks largely to favors granted by pliant politicians, gov-ernment union officials enjoy extraordinary special privi-leges and wield immense political clout. This influence oftencomes at the expense of taxpayers and independent-mindedcivil servants, but an impending Supreme Court decisioncould change all that.

In the 25 states that lack right-to-work laws, nonunionpublic employees can be forced to pay union dues or fees tokeep their jobs. Although union officials are technically pro-hibited from forcing nonunion workers to pay for politicalactivism, this rule is difficult to enforce and often ignored.Many nonunion employees are unaware of their right to optout. Others are simply told that all union dues are mandato-ry. Even employees who are aware of their rights may bereluctant to “rock the boat” in a unionized workplace.

For employees who choose to assert their workplacerights, the opt-out process can be tortuous. Many unions relyon bureaucratic ruses to discourage independent-mindedworkers from stepping out of line. Service EmployeesInternational Union (SEIU) Local 1000, one of the largestpublic-sector unions in California, is actually facing a lawsuitfor trying to keep collecting full dues from unwillingemployees.

According to that lawsuit, several of the plaintiffs neverreceived notice from SEIU Local 1000 about their workplacerights. Others were only notified after a union-designatedwindow period for objecting to the payment of full dues hadalready expired.

Nonunion employees who did receive the union’s noticein a timely fashion found that it downplayed their right to optout. Information about refraining from paying dues for unionpolitics was printed in small, beige text on a pink backgroundand inserted below the union’s more prominent pitch for fullmembership.

This and similar arrangements give public-sector unionofficials an immense amount of cash to spend on their polit-ical agenda. According to the National Institute for LaborRelations Research, government unions spent at least $564million on politics in 2013 and 2014. That money buysaccess and special favors while insulating union officialsfrom public accountability.

This may be bad for taxpayers and civil servants, but it’sperfectly suited for ambitious politicians. Public-sector unionofficials enjoy extraordinary, government-granted privilegesthat would be considered absurd in any other context. To pro-

tect their exalted status, they lavish spending on favoredpolitical candidates. Once in office, those same politiciansare tasked with overseeing and “negotiating” with the veryunions that bankroll their electoral ambitions. Is it any won-der that so many states are facing huge budget crises?

Even if union officials scrupulously respected civil ser-vants’ workplace rights, it’s unclear where to draw the linebetween union politics and workplace bargaining. Contractnegotiations in the public sector inevitably touch on highlycharged ideological issues, such as the size and scope of gov-ernment. Yet nonunion employees who oppose a union’s bar-gaining tact have no choice but to pay for an activity thatcontradicts their political convictions.

The incestuous relationship between public-sector unionsand politicians busts budgets and erodes democratic account-ability. But without ready access to forced-dues cash, gov-ernment unions’ political influence would decline dramati-cally. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has just agreed to heara case that strikes at the heart of public-sector unions’ forced-dues privileges. In Friedrichs v. California TeachersAssociation, a group of nonunion public school teachers ischallenging a union policy that requires them to pay anyunion dues at all to keep their jobs.

Friedrichs gives the court an opportunity to outlaw allmandatory union dues in the public sector. To be clear, sucha ruling wouldn’t end government unions. Employees whogenuinely support a labor organization would still be free tojoin up and pay dues. What it would do, however, is limitgovernment unions’ outsized political influence.

Without a guaranteed stream of income from nonunionemployees, union officials wouldn’t have nearly as muchmoney to spend on friendly politicians. Moreover, unionsthat actually have to persuade employees to join and volun-tarily contribute tend to be more focused on their membersand less fixated on partisan politics.

Outlawing mandatory union dues or fees in the public sec-tor would also limit the ability of union officials to handpicktheir negotiating partners in state and local government.Politicians who aren’t beholden to union special interests aremore likely to strike better bargains for their constituents.

Ideally, no employee — public or private — would everbe forced to pay union dues to get or keep a job. InFriedrichs, the Supreme Court has a chance to restore theworkplace rights of America’s civil servants and end the cor-rupting influence of public-sector forced dues on our politi-cal system.

Mark Mix is president of the National Right to WorkFoundation. This op-ed first appeared in The WashingtonTimes.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK FEATURED COMMENTARY

November/December 2015 Foundation Action 5

Foundation will proudly provide freelegal aid to drivers opposed to this vio-lation of their rights,” he added.

Independent drivers in Seattle cancontact the National Right to WorkFoundation via its toll-free hotline orwebsite to speak with a Foundationattorney about their legal options.Moreover, the Foundation is on highalert for new attempts to impose forcedunionism on other independent con-tractors making their living in the shar-ing economy.

Independent drivers alsotargeted by union bossesin California

Seattle is not the only place whereindependent drivers face threats to theirautonomy and workplace freedom. BigLabor bosses and their political allies inCalifornia are also devising schemes toforce drivers into union ranks.

In June 2015, the California LaborCommissioner declared that an inde-pendent driver, who had previouslycontracted with Uber, was an “employ-ee” of Uber, not an independent con-

SEATTLE, WA – Companies like Uber,Lyft and others in the “sharing” or“crowdsourcing” economy have becomeprime targets for union bosses as theyhave grown in popularity. Uber and Lyftnow provide over one million rides perday by connecting consumers in need oftransportation with independent driversusing their mobile apps.

Uber and Lyft drivers are independ-ent contractors, and are thereforeexempt from federal labor laws thatauthorize forced unionism. But that has-n’t stopped union officials and theirpolitical allies from attempting toexpand monopoly unionism and forceddues to the more than 150,000 activedrivers using Uber and Lyft.

Unfortunately, union schemes likethis are all too common. Union bossesare constantly seeking new tools to pushmore workers into their forced-dues-paying ranks.

In the recent Foundation-won Harrisv. Quinn Supreme Court case, unionbosses convinced friendly politicians toexpand the definition of “state employ-ees” to include home healthcare workerswho often work in their own home, tak-ing care of their own children. Unionbosses see independent drivers for serv-ices like Uber and Lyft as the next tar-gets for expanding their forced-union-ism ranks and filling union coffers withmore forced-dues dollars.

Seattle bill would handdrivers to union bosses

In Seattle, the City Council is movingto adopt a bill that would require for-hire ride sharing companies like Uberand Lyft to enter into monopoly bar-gaining agreements with labor unions.Under the legislation, independent driv-ers who drive for Uber and Lyft wouldbe forced to accept union “representa-

tion” and would forfeit a portion ofevery paycheck to union bosses.

“Soon after learning of this threat todrivers’ workplace freedom, theNational Right to Work Foundationissued a special legal notice to alert driv-ers that they could soon be forced to payunion fees to keep their jobs,” saidPatrick Semmens, vice president of theNational Right to Work Foundation.

In addition to forcing all drivers –even the ones who did not vote for theunion – to accept mandatory union rep-resentation, the Seattle legislation wouldrequire that the companies turn overevery driver’s personal contact informa-tion, including home address, to unionbosses, an open invitation to unionharassment, intimidation, and abuse.

“This bill is nothing more than ascheme by local politicians to help theirBig Labor political allies by forcing evenmore workers into union ranks,” contin-ued Semmens.

“It is outrageous that for-hire driverscould soon be forced to forfeit a portionof their earnings to a union to continueto contract with companies like Uberand Lyft. The National Right to Work

Independent drivers provided by mobile services like Uber and Lyft are BigLabor’s latest target for compulsory unionism. Fortunately, Foundation staffattorneys are available to fight this push for more forced dues.

Foundation Fights Push to Impose Forced Unionism on “Sharing Economy”Foundation offers legal aid to Seattle Uber and Lyft drivers targeted by union organizers

See NEW FORCED DUES PUSH page 8

6 Foundation Action November/December 2015

Golden State workplacesplagued by forced dues

John Woodall, another Californiaworker, recently filed federal unfairlabor practice charges with the NLRBagainst International Union ofOperating Engineers (IUOE) Local 3after a union official threatenedWoodall with an ultimatum to join upor be fired.

Woodall is employed at WasteManagement’s Woodland, Californiaplant, and is not a member of the union.In mid-August, he began to notice flyersposted around his workplace by theunion that said workers must appear atthe union hall in person to “make mem-bership” by September 9.

Confused about the flyer, Woodallspoke to a union official, who threat-ened him with termination if he did notjoin the union by September 9.

Woodall refused to join the IUOE,fully understanding that he has the rightnot to join a labor union without losinghis job. However, he still faced the riskof being fired if the union followedthrough on its illegal threat.

National Right to Work Foundationstaff attorneys helped Woodall file fed-eral unfair labor practice charges againstIUOE Local 3, which the NLRB is nowinvestigating. As of the publication ofthis article, IUOE bosses have backedoff from their threat to have Woodallfired, likely because of the Foundation’sefforts to publicize his plight.

“The Golden State isn’t very goldenfor independent-minded employees,”said LaJeunesse. “Fighting theseschemes in court is important, but theonly permanent solution to this type ofabuse is a California Right to Work law,which would make union dues andmembership strictly voluntary.”

ceptable practice, but such abuses are farfrom isolated incidents in California.

SEIU targets California hospital employees

In fact, this particular SEIU local is arepeat offender. The exact same unionwas hit with another complaint by theNLRB for using the same scheme at aSacramento hospital.

In June 2015, SEIU officials informedAmy Kelsey, a nurse at Dignity HealthMercy General Hospital, that she hadbeen enrolled as a dues-paying memberand had to pay monthly union dues.Like Cornejo, Kelsey never signed up tobe a member of the union. She was alsonot informed of her right to refrain fromunion membership.

Foundation staff attorneys helpedKelsey file unfair labor practice chargeswith the NLRB, prompting the RegionalDirector to issue a formal complaint onJuly 13. Cornejo and Kelsey’s cases willnow be tried together before an admin-istrative law judge.

Golden State Employees Fight Unions Bosses’ Forced-Dues SchemesUnion officials’ forced-dues demands undermine independent employees’ rights THOUSAND OAKS, CA - Foundationlitigators are no strangers to the GoldenState. In workplaces across California,Right to Work staff attorneys are helpingunion-abused employees fight unionofficials’ forced-dues demands.

Guillermo Cornejo, a nurses’ aid atLos Robles Hospital and Medical Centerin Thousand Oaks, California, was noti-fied in March 2012 that he had beenenrolled as member of the SEIU UnitedHealthcare Workers West union andwas expected to pay full union dues. Theonly problem was that Cornejo neversigned up to join the union, but insteadhad been automatically enrolled as amember by SEIU officials.

Federal labor law protects a worker’sright not to join a labor union. However,SEIU officials never informed Cornejoof his right to refrain from union mem-bership.

Because California lacks a Right toWork law, employees can be forced topay a fee to union bosses to get or keepa job; however, workers cannot beforced to pay for activities such as unionpolitical lobbying or activism. SEIU offi-cials also failed to inform Cornejo of hisright to refrain from paying for unionpolitics.

With free legal assistance fromNational Right to Work Foundationstaff attorneys, Cornejo filed unfairlabor practice charges with the NationalLabor Relations Board (NLRB). TheBoard recently issued a complaintagainst the union and is seeking torequire that union officials properlyinform all workers in the bargainingunit of their rights and reimburse, withinterest, any illegally-confiscated dues.

“Unscrupulous union officials simplyforced every new worker to join and payup,” said Ray LaJeunesse, Vice Presidentof the National Right to WorkFoundation. “This is an illegal, unac-

After union officials told him thatmembership was mandatory, JohnWoodall turned to Foundation staffattorneys for help.

November/December 2015 Foundation Action 7

In last year’s Foundation-won Harrisdecision, the Supreme Court struckdown forced dues for in-home careproviders whose clients receive a statesubsidy for home care. These providersare not state employees, and many areparents who take care of their own chil-dren in their own homes. AlthoughFoundation staff attorneys argued inHarris that no state employee shouldever be required to pay dues to a union,the Court declined to issue a broaderruling because the plaintiff caregiverswere not “officially” state employees.

While Friedrichs is aimed at defend-ing the First Amendment rights of allpublic employees, other Foundation-assisted cases making their way throughthe courts seek to enforce and expandupon the Harris precedent for homecareworkers across the country.

In August, Foundation staff attorneysasked the Supreme Court to hear a class-action lawsuit filed by five Michiganhomecare providers who were illegallyforced to pay union fees. They are tryingto enforce the Harris precedent by ask-ing the Court to rule that union bossesmust refund to all Michigan homecareproviders an estimated $4 million inillegally-confiscated union fees.

Moreover, Foundation staff attorneyWilliam Messenger recently participat-ed in oral arguments in a Court ofAppeals case that builds on Harris. Thecase contends that homecare providersshould not only be protected from pay-ing dues to an unwanted union, but theyshould also be protected from beingforced to accept union “representation”that they have no interest in.

“National Right to Work Foundationstaff attorneys were at the forefront ofthe line of Supreme Court cases leadingto Friedrichs, and we’ll be ready to makesure a favorable ruling is enforced,” saidMix.

the public about the issues and reason-ing behind the challenge.

Furthermore, public pressure fromRight to Work supporters encouragedseveral states’ attorneys-general to inter-vene in the case in favor of eliminatingforced dues in the public sector.

In cases pending at the SupremeCourt, interested parties, advocacygroups, and elected officials will submit“friend of the court” briefs to raise argu-ments and provide additional perspec-tives that may otherwise go unheard.For instance, in litigation between unionofficials and employers, Foundationstaff attorneys may submit a brief forindividual workers to highlight the issueat stake from the perspective of employ-ees’ workplace rights.

Before the Supreme Court had decid-ed to take the Friedrichs case, a group ofnine state attorneys-general, led byMichigan Attorney General BillSchuette, submitted an amicus brief onbehalf of their states urging the Court totake the case to protect the FirstAmendment rights of civil servants intheir states. After the Supreme Courtagreed to take Friedrichs, it set a dead-line in September to accept additionalbriefs on the merits of the case.

In the month before the deadline, theFoundation launched an innovative pro-gram to encourage Right to Work sup-porters to urge their state attorney gen-eral and governor to join the merits-level amicus brief. The Foundation sentmail and e-mail to supporters prompt-ing them to contact their statewideelected officials and urge them to signon the brief. Foundation staffers alsoplaced targeted online advertisements in14 Right to Work states where the actionwas most likely to be effective.

“By launching this program, weinformed Right to Work supportersacross the country how they can direct-

ly impact a U.S. Supreme Court case thatcould end all government-sector forceddues once and for all,” said Mix.

Nine of the targeted state attorneys-general signed on to the brief, in addi-tion to the original nine who filed thebrief at the earlier stage of the case.Moreover, the governors of the forced-unionism states of Illinois and NewMexico submitted separate briefs on theside of protecting the First Amendmentrights of civil servants in their states,who currently lack the protection ofRight to Work laws.

Foundation attorneys laythe groundwork forexpanding worker rights

“Right to Work supporters’ signaturesadded significant strength to the argu-ments for worker freedom” Mix contin-ued. “Meanwhile, Foundation attorneysare trying to enforce the earlier courtprecedents that laid the groundwork forFriedrichs.”

Citizen activists submitted thou-sands of petitions asking their stateofficials to oppose forced unionismin the public sector.

Right to Work Supporters Take on Public Sector Forced Union Duescontinued from page 1

tractor. Similarly, in August theCalifornia Employment DevelopmentDepartment also ruled that a formerUber driver was an employee, not a con-tractor.

If independent, for-hire drivers arelegally determined to be “employees” bya judge, the next step for union bosses isto have them declared employees for thepurpose of imposing monopoly bar-gaining. Drivers can then be forced topay union dues and fees, and their inde-pendence and workplace freedom willdisappear.

Fortunately, drivers who want tostand up and oppose union bosses’attempts to impose forced unionism canturn to the National Right to WorkFoundation for free legal assistance.

“We encourage Uber or Lyft driverswho don’t want to be forced to acceptunion bargaining and pay union dues tocontact us immediately,” said Semmens.“Foundation staff attorneys have alreadyhelped home-based care providers fendoff similar unionization campaigns. Weplan to bring that experience to bear tohelp these drivers retain their workplaceindependence and protect themselvesfrom being required to pay dues tounions they have no interest in joiningor supporting.”

Dear Foundation Supporter:

As I write this note, Thanksgiving is approaching. There is no better time to saythank you, once again, for your support of the National Right to WorkFoundation.

Looking back on 2015, I’m grateful for all that you have helped us accomplish.As I look forward to 2016, we will continue to rely on your support as we face newchallenges in the battle against forced unionism.

As you’ll read in this issue of Foundation AAccttiioonn, the United States SupremeCourt is now considering whether forcing civil servants to pay union dues or“fees” is compatible with the First Amendment.

The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, builds upon recent hard-fought, Foundation-won precedents. Thanks to the dedicated support of con-cerned citizens like you, the Foundation has been at the forefront of this issue,paving the way for the very real possibility that soon every government worker inAmerica will enjoy Right to Work protections.

The union bosses and their government enablers are, as expected, apoplecticabout the possibility that teachers and other government workers may be able todecide for themselves whether they want to subsidize Big Labor.

It’s no wonder that Big Labor’s high command and their puppet politicians aremore determined than ever to ram as many new power grabs through BarackObama’s biased federal bureaucracy while they still can.

Not only that, they’ve already started unleashing another billion dollar elec-tioneering blitz to retain their iron-clad grip on the White House and install newpro-forced-unionism majorities in Congress. Heading into 2016, yourFoundation must stand guard against the illegal use of forced dues to subsidize BigLabor’s radical political agenda.

Whichever way the Court rules in Friedrichs, I expect the Foundation’s legal aidprogram to be as busy as ever.

That’s why, in this season of giving thanks, I’m grateful for the unwaveringenthusiasm and generosity of Right to Work supporters like you. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

8 Foundation Action November/December 2015

Message from Mark Mix

PresidentNational Right to WorkLegal Defense Foundation

New Forced Dues Pushcontinued from page 5