On Tuesday, National Right to Work staff attorneys argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of tens of thousands of California civil servants who were forced to contribute to an SEIU "Political Fight Back Fund" in 2005. The video below gives a overview of what's at stake in the case, including an interview with Foundation staff attorney Jim Young:

You can also read Right to Work President Mark Mix's op-ed on the case in The Washington Times. Here's the key quote:

Forcing civil servants to subsidize the political agenda of an organization to which they don’t belong should offend every American, regardless of political sympathies. Voluntary SEIU members may wish to financially support their organization’s political goals, but nonunion employees - many of whom disagree with the union’s agenda - are under no similar obligation. Freedom of association is a bedrock principle of American democracy, and no one should be compelled to support a group to which they don’t belong.

For more info, check out the Foundation's Knox webpage, which includes links to relevant legal documents, press releases, and media coverage. 

The Supreme Court is scheduled to release its ruling in the case by June.

Civil Servants File Brief Opposing Union Challenge to Public-Sector Unionism Reforms

Workers ask court to uphold reform measure protecting most Badger State public workers from forced unionism

Madison, WI (January 9, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, two Wisconsin public employees have filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of Scott Walker's government-sector monopoly bargaining reform. The reform protects the Right to Work for most Wisconsin public workers and bans automatic forced-union-dues seizures from public employees' paychecks.

Christopher King, a social services specialist for Western Wisconsin Cares, and Carie Kendrick, a custodial lead at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, filed the brief with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The workers, who are forced to accept the "representation" of union officials, want instead the freedom to represent themselves with their employers. The workers state in their brief that "they equate the 'services' provided by (union officials) to be akin to those of some itinerant street window washers who sling dirty water on your car windshield, smear it around, and then demand payment."

In their brief, the workers ask the judge to uphold the new law as constitutional and deny the unions' request to suspend the law. The workers rely on the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Davenport v. WEA victory in which the Court unanimously held that union bosses enjoy an "extraordinary power" to force workers to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, but have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct union dues or fees from workers' paychecks.

Read the entire release here.

Civil Servants File New Brief in Federal Public-Sector Unionism Case

Workers ask court to uphold reform measure protecting most Badger State public workers from forced unionism

Madison, WI (October 20, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, three Wisconsin public employees affected by Wisconsin’s recent public-sector unionism reforms have filed an amicus curiae brief in federal court asking the judge to uphold the new law and deny the unions' request to suspend the law.

Pleasant Prairie teacher Kristi Lacroix, Waukesha high school teacher Nathan Berish, and trust fund specialist at the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds Ricardo Cruz filed the brief late last week in favor of the reforms which sharply limited government union officials' monopoly bargaining power over public workers and taxpayers.

The teachers object to the union's use of their forced union dues for the union's political activities. In a recent legal brief, union officials admitted that under the reforms public-sector union bosses would lose at least a quarter of their forced-union-dues revenues. For example, Wisconsin teacher union bosses would not be able to force independent-minded teachers to pay $5.4 million in forced dues and $375,000 for teacher union boss political activism, thus highlighting the need for a Right to Work law for Wisconsin’s workers – in both the public and private sectors.

All three workers want to exercise the freedom to represent themselves with their employers, stating in their brief that "they equate the 'services' provided by (union officials) to be akin to those of some itinerant street window washers who sling dirty water on your car windshield, smear it around, and then demand payment."

Read the entire release here.

State Employee Commission Rubber Stamps Union Boss Retaliation Against Employee Who Won Case against Union

Case highlights need to roll back union boss powers in the Garden State

Trenton, NJ (May 10, 2011) – Despite his previous legal successes, a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employee is learning firsthand how difficult it is to obtain justice in the face of union retaliation.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, DEP employee Gary Lipsius filed charges against the DEP for reversing a promotion and pay raise allegedly in retaliation for his previous filing of a successful lawsuit against Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 1034 union bosses and the agency.

Lipsius successfully challenged the illegal deduction of compulsory dues from the paychecks of thousands of nonunion New Jersey employees in a 2004 class-action lawsuit against the CWA union. With free legal aid from the Foundation, Lipsius and two of his colleagues charged the CWA union with collecting compulsory dues for non-chargeable activities, such as politics, without properly disclosing the union’s expenditures. The suit forced CWA union officials to cease and desist their illegal actions.

Lipsius’ unfair labor practice charges against the DEP – which prompted the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to investigate and conduct a trial – sought back pay and a reinstatement of his raise and promotion.

Read the entire release here.

Last week, Right to Work President Mark Mix sat down with Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News to discuss the protests in Wisconsin and the problems of union monopoly bargaining in the public sector. Check out the video below:

With the Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill looming on the horizon, here's a portent of things to come from the Cal Watchdog blog:

North Bay firefighters launched a boycott of a Napa Valley winery this weekend after its owner criticized their wages and benefits in a letter published in the St. Helena Star. But more than a boycott was launched, as the winery owner has received veiled threats online from some public safety employees, potentially refusing to fight a fire at his home or winery, or save him from choking in a restaurant.

A concerned winery owner has the temerity to point out that public sector union bosses have bankrupted California. In return, he's threatened by union operatives who say they'll refuse to fight a fire at his home or place of business. The union militants' reaction is all the more thuggish in light of the original letter to the editor, which is about as mild as political criticism gets, putting the blame squarely on the politicians:

Napa Valley winery owner Dario Sattui of V. Sattui Winery wrote a letter to the Editor of the St. Helena Star, venting about the benefits and pensions that firefighters receive. In his April 9 letter, Sattui wrote, “I thought I was doing well in the wine business. Had I had any real brains I would have become a firefighter. What a racket they have. While I respect the work they do and the inherent dangers, they are greatly overpaid, work only two days a week (a third of which they sleep) and get to retire at 50 years old at 90 percent of their pay after working 30 years. I don’t blame the firefighters. Good for them for getting as much as they can. The blame goes to the politicians and the government administrators. What do they care? It isn’t their money.”

The skyrocketing costs of public services are an inevitable consequence of public sector unionization, which relentlessly expands government and drives up taxes. Union operatives' threat to ignore a fire at the winery owner's home also highlights the dangers of the Police and Firefighters Monopoly Bargaining Bill, which would leave state and local public safety employees at the mercy of Big Labor organizing drives. Once Big Labor bosses are firmly in control of public safety organizations, they'll have no qualms about leveraging their influence over firefighters and police departments to threaten anyone who dares to question their monopoly bargaining powers. 

Gov. Quinn Faces Class-Action Suit for Executive Order Designed to Unionize Home-Care Providers

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys assist home-based personal care providers pushed into union’s forced-dues ranks against their will

Chicago, IL (April 22, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, a group of home-based personal care providers today filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Governor Pat Quinn and union officials for their efforts to force Illinois personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

The suit stems from an executive order issued by disgraced former-Governor Rod Blagojevich shortly after his election, later codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers who care for individuals with disabilities were designated as “public employees” of the state of Illinois for the purpose of granting Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses monopoly “representation” and forced dues privileges over them.

Following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced unionism, Quinn signed an executive order last June that made an additional 4,500 home-based personal care providers susceptible to unwanted union boss bargaining and political “representation.” Not coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses’ political endorsement and support during his recent closely-contested primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor.

The additional 4,500 home-care providers who are not yet under union control soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one margin in a mail-in vote. However, per Quinn’s executive order, the home-care providers may again be subject to out-of-state SEIU and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union organizers making “home visits” attempting to organize the home-care providers through coercive “card check” unionization tactics.

Pam Harris, Gordon Stiefel, and several other home-care providers -- with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation -- filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois’s providers unionized by Blagojevich and on behalf of home-care providers threatened by forced unionism as a result of Quinn’s executive order.

“My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son,” said Harris, who provides personal care for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the suit. “Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with.”

Click here to read the whole release.

A copy of the complaint can be downloaded (pdf) by clicking here.