Teacher Files Brief in Wisconsin Government Unionism Reform Battle in Federal Court

Public-sector union bosses file desperate lawsuit seeking to protect forced dues stranglehold over Wisconsin’s public workers and taxpayers

Madison, WI (June 29, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a Kenosha teacher affected by Wisconsin’s recent public-sector unionism reforms has filed an amicus curiae brief in federal court.

Kristi Lacroix, who has been a teacher for 13 years and is an English teacher at the LakeView Technology Academy in Pleasant Prairie, filed the brief Monday in favor of the reforms which sharply limited government union officials’ monopoly bargaining power over public workers and taxpayers.

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Governor Scott Walker’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform bill, which protects the Right to Work for most government employees and bans automatic forced-union-dues seizures from public employees’ paychecks.

In response, union lawyers filed a new lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn the bill, claiming that Freedom of Association – the right of American citizens to voluntarily come together to express their opinions and petition the government – gives union bosses forced-dues and monopoly bargaining powers.

Foundation staff attorneys have won at the United States Supreme Court numerous times on this very issue, winning precedents that support the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reform bill.

Read the entire release here.

 Gary Davenport with his wife and three children at the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a result of the National Right to Work Foundation’s precedent-setting victory before the United States Supreme Court in Davenport v. WEA, Washington state's teachers are receiving compensation for the forced unionism abuses and First Amendment rights violations they suffered at the hands of teacher union officials.

In 2001, Gary Davenport, a history teacher at Kentwood High School, and fellow teachers across the state of Washington who refrained from formal union membership, were being forced to pay $500 or more each per year in fees for the Washington Education Association (WEA) union bosses’ so-called “representation” because their state does not have Right to Work protections for its workers.

It was then that Davenport discovered that WEA union officials were illegally using his and some 10,000 other nonmember teachers’ forced union dues for the union bosses’ political agenda.

After a protracted legal battle in various courts, the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighed in. The Court unanimously ruled in favor of the teachers, declaring unions have no constitutional right to collect fees from nonmembers and allowing states to require union bosses to obtain affirmative consent before spending nonmember public employees’ forced fees on political activities.

After the case went back to state court, WEA union bosses finally settled with the teachers and agreed to refund the dues that were improperly confiscated.

The checks (some of which are pictured below) were sent to thousands of Washington teachers last week.

 

For more information regarding the National Right To Work Foundation's history-shaping legal precedents on behalf of abused workers, click here.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees With Right to Work Foundation: Unions Have No Right to Payroll Deduction

More effective alternative would have been stopping government payroll deduction for all union dues

Washington, DC (February 24, 2009) — The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 in Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association that states may prohibit union officials from using payroll deduction to divert government workers’ money into union coffers.

In overturning a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision and upholding an Idaho law banning payroll deduction for union political dues from state and local government employees, the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with arguments made by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. The lower court had blocked the state from requiring local government bodies to comply with the state law.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys – joining with the Sutherland Institute, Utah Taxpayers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Business – successfully argued in their amicus brief (pdf) that unions, in fact, have no constitutional right to use government resources to deduct dues from workers’ paychecks.

“The Supreme Court's decision makes clear what should be obvious, that union officials have no constitutional right to use government resources to line their pockets,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "It is bad public policy for government bodies essentially to act as bagmen for union political monies.”

(Continue reading this news release...)

Washington State Appeals Court Upholds Teachers’ Right to Restitution for Dues Illegally Spent By WEA Union Officials

After securing U.S. Supreme Court victory, National Right to Work attorneys pick up the pieces of an otherwise impotent campaign finance regulation

Seattle, WA (December 17, 2008) — A recent decision by a Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 2, has ruled union officials can be held liable for illegally spending teachers’ forced union dues under a now-effectively defunct campaign finance regulation.

The ruling means that thousands of Washington State teachers may receive restitution for the amount Washington Education Association (WEA) union officials illegally docked their paychecks to pay for union political expenditures. The ineffective campaign finance law at issue had been adopted in 1992 and has since been voided by the Washington State Legislature.

The teachers are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. In 2007, Foundation attorneys successfully brought the Davenport v. WEA case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned an earlier Washington State Supreme Court decision using the campaign finance law to undermine the First Amendment. The state appeals court ruled Friday on a number of issues, including upholding the teachers’ tort claim for restitution and approving the certification of thousands of employees as a class.

Before it was gutted by amendment in 2007, the Washington law had required union officials to obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending their mandatory union dues on a small fraction of what the union actually spends on politics. According to an amicus brief filed by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the amount of political expenditures actually covered by the law was “miniscule… less than one quarter of one percent of the WEA’s total expenditures.” However, in striking down the law, the state Supreme Court had erroneously found a constitutional “right” for union officials to spend the money of non-union employees who are compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

(Continue reading this news release...)

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.

And speaking of which, a Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial today highlights the National Right to Work Foundation's recent work at the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you haven’t already, take a look at this site that shows a unique take on the employees that the National Right to Work Foundation helps.

This page, called “Employee Profiles” highlights just a few of the courageous employees who have stood up against compulsory unionism abuse with the Foundation’s help. The interactive site gives a brief look at their stories and experiences, along with personal quotes, pictures and news.

You may find 16-Year-Old Danielle Cookson’s story inspiring, as she stood up against union bosses who were threatening her job. Or, former history teacher Gary Davenport’s Supreme Court fight might provide some insight on your First Amendment rights and union officials using forced dues for politics.

The 10 brave individuals featured on the site, who have boldly stood up to defend their rights in the face of union coercion, have provided hope for those workers throughout the nation who believe in the principle that no American should be forced to join or pay dues to a union.

More profiles will be added to this site soon.