Yesterday's Politico featured an article on Big Labor's agenda for 2009 (which the SEIU union just announced that alone it plans to spend $85 million to push for). As we already know, priority one is imposing the card check organizing mandate that leads to intimidation and harassment of workers who may not wish to affiliate with a union.

The whole article is worth reading, however one particular quote is instructive about the state of Big Labor and union organizing today:

“For American labor, 2009 will be a big year,” McEntee said. “We have a new administration. We have governors all across the country who are looking toward being able to organize more workers in red states that have become blue.”

Notice that McEntee, who is the top official at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, says that it will be politicians who unionize workers.

This is the dirty little secret: It's increasingly uncommon for employees to seek unionization on their own.  Instead, most "organizing" takes place because union officials target workers for unionization from the outside top down-style, often with Big Labor supported politicians playing a central role.

Two of the many examples of this are the Maine State workers being represented by Foundation attorneys in the Locke U.S. Supreme Court case and the home and health care workers in Illinois who were forced into union ranks by disgraced Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich. In both those cases, the union was designated by Big Labor-friendly governors -- rather than selected by the workers.

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.

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).

Ah, the Maine State Employees Association. When they're not extorting workers' dues to pay for union activism and legal schemes, MSEA bosses are evidently fond of harassing UPS truck drivers:

Timothy Belcher, the leader [sic] of the state's workers' union, has requested that a jury hear allegations that he illegally blocked a UPS driver from continuing his rounds earlier this summer.

Belcher's attorney, Leonard Sharon, said this week that a trial date has not yet been set in Sagadahoc County Superior Court.

Belcher, 53, the executive director of the Maine State Employee Association, a labor union representing more than 15,000 public and private sector workers throughout Maine, was issued a summons charging him with criminal restraint on June 25 after allegedly standing in front of the UPS drivers' truck to prevent it from leaving the driveway to Belcher's Bowdoinham home.

Criminal restraint is a Class D misdemeanor that carries a maximum potential penalty of a year in jail and a fine, Sharon said.

The MSEA, of course, is one of the parties in the upcoming Foundation Supreme Court case Locke v. Karass. Foundation attorneys seek a court ruling that would put greater teeth into protections for nonunion workers laboring under forced union dues.

Here's how the responding officer described Mr. Belcher's decision-making faculties after the hapless UPS driver called the police:

"He just seemed to be irrational at the time and wasn't making good decisions," [Officer] Rogers said.

Now ask yourself: would you trust Mr. Belcher to manage your hard-earned money? Why should Maine State employees be forced to hand over their hard-earned money to Belcher?

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.

The Bush Administration is arguing Big Labor's legal positions in court again.

Right to Work supporters recall the Bush Administration's lousy record when it comes to employee free choice and worker freedom. Solicitor General Paul Clement seemed to take pleasure in parroting union lawyer talking points in important legal proceedings like Davenport v. Washington Education Association. Before resigning in May, Clement took another swipe at employee freedom in Locke v. Karass, another Foundation case going to the Supreme Court.

Clement's successor, Acting Solicitor General Gregory Garre, appears to be picking up where Clement left off. On Friday, Garre filed a motion with the Supreme Court to participate in oral arguments in Locke. Worse, Garre wants to cut into time already allocated to Foundation attorneys.

In Locke, Foundation attorneys are representing 20 Maine state employees who contend that the union which "represents" them -- the Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) -- is violating their First Amendment rights by sending part of their forced dues to a giant union slush fund which the affiliated Service Employees International Union (SEIU) can use to finance costly litigation, even though such litigation does not directly impact the state employees' own bargaining unit. SEIU is one of the most radical and politically militant national unions.

On Monday, the Foundation filed its opposition to the federal government's motion, making several important points to challenge both the SG's motion to participate and the motion for divided argument.

The Acting Solicitor General has failed to adequately demonstrate the government's concrete interest in the case. Importantly, no federal statute is at stake. Garre's motion claims the government's interest by vaguely pointing to the Secretary of Labor's responsibility to advise the President on labor policy and carry out Congressional policy and to the National Labor Relations Act, though Garre even contradictorily argues in the motion "that questions arising under the NLRA are distinguishable from this case."

The High Court has the option to simply extend time for oral arguments, but Garre wants to cut into the time of both the Foundation attorneys and MSEA lawyers -- even though the Court's rules permit divided arguments "only in the most extraordinary circumstances." But of the 22 pages of argument in the Solicitor's amicus brief, 17 are devoted to opposing the pro-worker legal position taken by Foundation attorneys.

Moreover, the MSEA cites the Solicitor's arguments 14 times in its own brief. If the Court grants the government's motion, it would "deny the Employees their full opportunity to present their views."

The Bush administration's stance in Locke is inexplicable. With only a few more months before he leaves office, Bush has no electoral reason to try to appease Big Labor (not that Republican appeasement of union bosses works out very well). But as the Acting Solicitor General's motion demonstrates, the Bush administration doesn't have enough significant legal interest either.

Yet, the Solicitor General's office persists in going out of its way to undercut the rights of nonunion employees forced to pay dues as a condition of employment, despite the administration's supposed support of the Right to Work. So once again we have to observe the old saying: With "friends" like these... who needs enemies?

And the Solicitor General's office can't say it doesn't know the harm it is doing. Its demand for oral argument time comes after the Foundation asked it to withdraw its legal brief because, if the Justices took it seriously, it would do serious harm to employees' rights.

Instead, Foundation attorneys may now find themselves arguing not only against Big Labor's lawyers, but also against the Bush Administration.

The cover story of the July/August issue of Foundation Action is now available for download here.

The story details former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement's efforts to undermine the Foundation's Locke v. Karass U.S. Supreme Court case. The article also shows that this isn't the first time that the Solicitor General, who recently-resigned his position, has undercut a Foundation Supreme Court case.

You can get your own free subscription to Foundation Action here.

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.