California Policy Center: "This Labor Day, CA government unions have 77,000 fewer members"

 

This Labor Day, California government unions have 77,000 fewer members

Dear Arthur,

As Californians gear up to celebrate Labor Day weekend, consider this good news: Government unions in California are facing their lowest membership numbers in decades.

Five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that government workers cannot be compelled to pay union dues or fees as a condition of their employment. Forcing people to join a group violates their First Amendment right of free assembly; forcing them to pay for union messaging violates their First Amendment free-speech right.

As a result of that landmark decision, government unions across the nation have seen their membership rolls plummet — and no state has seen a greater drop than California.

That decline is due to the generosity of California Policy Center’s donors. In the past five years, hundreds of freedom-loving Americans took the problem head-on. They poured almost $7 million dollars into helping public employees unshackle themselves from union dues.

These donors are the heroes who funded our campaign to help government employees leave their unions.

In fact, since we launched our Janus Project, California’s government unions have lost a whopping 29 percent of their members compared to 22 percent nationwide. Government unions in the Golden State are down nearly 400,000 members — now at their lowest membership since the 1990s.

That translates into a loss of $337 million in membership dues every year! That’s money California unions can’t use to influence local and state elections, push left-wing policies that hurt California’s working families, or lobby union-backed politicians who pull the strings in our state legislature and local governments.

How do we know California government union membership is cratering? Thanks to CPC’s unique model of using Public Records Act requests (PRAs) to access government payroll records, we're able to reveal the actual numbers when it comes to membership totals instead of taking the unions’ word for it.

In fact, California government unions have 77,000 fewer members since just last year!

This Labor Day, consider celebrating worker freedom by leaving your union — or by supporting our outreach efforts to union workers by making a donation to CPC’s Janus Project in any amount. All contributions made over Labor Day weekend will go directly toward our digital outreach to union employees.

To learn more about leaving your union, visit mypaymysay.com.

Torrance City Council Election 2022, Reflections: The Mayor's Race

Torrance Mayor George Chen

Now that the dust is settling after the June 7th, 2022 election day, I wanted to take some time to analyze the results of the Torrance City Council races.

There is so much to unpack, and more importantly there is so much to celebrate.

Let's start with the Mayor's race.

It was a contest between twice-elected city councilman George Chen and twice-elected FORMER city councilman Cliff Numark.

Councilman, and now MAYOR Chen, has had an incredible, meteoric rise in the city of Torrance.

He first ran for city council in 2018, and he was elected by the at-large electorate, since the city council districts were imposed later that year.

He and Councilman Mattucci were elected that year, and their triumph was only augmented by the fact that they pushed out left-leaning incumbent Kurt Weideman. Quite an upset!

But Councilman, now MAYOR Chen's victories deserve more recognition.

Every time that Chen has run, he has not received the support for the political establishment in any way, shape, or form.

Every public sector union operating in the city has endorsed someone else (as in 2018), or they have endorsed George Chen's appoint. He became 0 for 3 in terms of public sector union endorsements.

Yet each time, George Chen has prevailed. This is really amazing!

But it gets better.

Chen has never sat on a commission in the city of Torrance. Ever. He has not played the "Torrance Way" political games which other city councilmembers and mayors have played for the last thirty years. As Southeast Torrance Homeowners Association President John Bailey had shared with me a few years ago, there is a political establishment in this town, something of a uniparty of Republicans and Democrats who give into all the special interests, who maintain their little club of politically connected self-congratulators. They have pretty much run things in the city of Torrance for the last few decades.

Mayor Chen is not part of that system. He has really broken it up!

He had no backing from the public sector unions.

He had no support from the Scotto-Furey-Ashcraft-Geissert-Armstrong political establishment.

And he won!

His second victory deserves considerable recognition, too.

In 2020, after the city council divided up the city elections in council districts, Chen had to make a choice: either finish the rest of his term at large and not run for city council again, or run a second time for a new seat, District Two.

To make the second choice even more challenging, another city council incumbent Geoff Rizzo lived in District Two, and he was up for re-election in 2020 regardless.

Rizzo had been elected twice already, and city wide: first in 2014, where he was the fourth from the top vote-getter. He had to run again in 2016, because his election filled in a seat for someone else. I even endorsed Rizzo in 2016, just to make sure that turncoat RINO Lie-Lani Kimmel-Dagostino did not get into city council that year.

Rizzo had two victories under his belt. What's more, he was a retired lieutenant from the Torrance Police Department. On top of that, he had the backing of every political machine in the city, including Scotto's people as well as the Torrance Police Officers Association.

Yet for all of that support, Rizzo lost to Councilman Chen by double digits: 57%-43%!

What an incredible upset for the city, and a big win for all city residents. It was really something! I spoke with a number of local conservative activists in Torrance, and they were convinced that Rizzo was going to win out, since he had the backing of the police officers' union.

And yet George Chen won!

Remember, that was his second victory, too.

And now, George Chen is mayor. I cannot think of any mayor in the city's history who did not first serve on one of the commissions. To the best of my knowledge, Councilman Chen is the first outsider to get elected to the city council without "playing the game."

What's also remarkable is that unlike the two previous elections for mayor, George Chen did not have to contend with another Republican splitting the vote. In 2014, Tom Brewer and Bill Sutherland refused to adults and put the needs of the city first, and they both insisted on running for mayor. That split allowed Creepy Pat Furey to cut through the middle and become mayor with a bare 40% of the vote.

This is a big deal, folks. This is not just a win for better governance in the city of Torrance, but a victory for everyone in the city who has felt slighted, ignored, or dismissed by the uniparty political class that put their own narrow interests ahead of the city.

And let's contrast George Chen with Cliff Numark more discretely.

Numark was the machine candidate, if there ever was one. As I had shared above, he had already been elected twice before to the Torrance city council. He was first elected in 2008, a record year for Democrats nationally as well as locally. He was then elected again in 2012.

But then came 2013, when Numark wanted to climb up the political ladder. He ran for the El Camino College Board of Trustees, and he got elected there. Numark abandoned the city of Torrance for political posturing: let's call it what it is.

Numark would get elected two more time to the college board, where without a doubt he locked up the support from teachers unions and other political special interests. He was riding high on the Democratic Party pathway to power. A number of powerbrokers in the South Bay wanted Cliff Numark to think about running for State Assembly next, since Al Muratsuchi will be termed out in 2026, but he may just as well as retire in 2024.

So, out of nowhere, nine years later, after serving on the College Board out of the public eye, where he went to every length to impose onerous health mandates on every student (regardless of their health status), Cliff Numark wanted to run for mayor of the city of Torrance. Really? 

"Where have you been, Cliff?" was probably the first question on a lot of people's minds.

Of course, the political establishment in Torrance asked Cliff to run for city council. I was really shocked, dismayed, and downright disgusted to see so many so-called "Republicans" line up behind Cliff Numark. Geoff "The RINO" Rizzo supported Cliff Numark, of course, since Chen had knocked him off the city council in 2020. It was just bitterness, pure and simple. But then Heide Ashcraft, too? A number of conservatives in the city told me that Heidi was a tough lady, and that nothing phased her.

And yet she caved and pandered to the political establishment, just like everyone else. Of course, no one should take this as a shock. She has been part of the political class herself for at least two decades. She served at least three terms on the Torrance School Board, and then the city council appointed her to fill in Sue Rhilinger's seat in 2013, followed by her top victory in Election 2014.

Still, I would have assumed that Councilwoman Ashcraft would have had enough fortitude to stand up to Creepy Pat Furey and his bullying, too. After all, retired Councilman Maureen O'Donnell rushed down to the Torrance City Council chambers in 2014 after soon-to-be former Mayor Pat Furey shamed Councilman Ashcraft in front of everyone.

Furey has been a true blight on the city of Torrance, yet of course he would endorse Cliff Numark, too. No surprises there. And just as every special interest in the city lined up behind Geoff Rizzo, so too they supported Cliff Numark for mayor. The police officers union, the firefighters association, and every other government union in the city AND THE COUNTY lined up behind Cliff Numark. The Sierra Club even leant their endorsement to Cliff Numark!

"Quittin'" Cliff was the machine candidate. He had more money, more endorsements, more of just about everything one presumably needs to get elected ...

And he lost!

George Chen beat the system, beat the political machine, beat the long-standing "Torrance Way" establishment in the city. What a victory!

Truly, it's all because of the Grace of God. There was nothing in George's strengh, experience, or skill-set which would have determined his victory. It's the blessings and grace of God that Torrance finally has a good mayor, Mayor Chen, to lead the city through the tough times ahead.

Janus v. AFSCME: How to Leave Your Teachers Union

Janus v. AFSCME ended forced unionism and forced dues.

Every public school teacher has rights as a public sector worker.

Janus v. AFSCME has ended the "agency fees" imposition which public sector unions were allowed to get away with for decades.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

This website has some more information on this issue:

https://spn.org/landing_page/janus-v-afscme/?gclid=CjwKCAjwt8uGBhBAEiwAayu_9YvHLkU4lvK2U9ZKVFMimDIHJg053-97-rwta2Be189aS9u2Bm13cRoCJtYQAvD_BwE

Janus v. AFSCME | State Policy Network spn.org What was Janus v. AFSCME about and how will it impact workers? Learn more about the Janus case, see the latest media coverage, and find out what is happening in your state.

 

Here's another website that people can check, which clearly recognizes their restored JANUS rights:

 

https://myjanusrights.org/

MyJanusRights.org Homepage myjanusrights.org MyJanusRights.org Welcome to The Official Janus Rights Page. National Right To Work’s recent Supreme Court Victory in Janus v. AFSCME created newly-won "Janus Rights" provide Right To Work protections for all government employees. Additionally, every government employee must request union membership (opt-in) rather being forced by unions to annually opt-out of union membership.

 

And here's the general Right to Work Foundation website:

 

https://www.nrtw.org/

National Right to Work Foundation Home - National Right to Work Foundation www.nrtw.org The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization. Its mission is to eliminate coercive union power and compulsory unionism abuses through strategic litigation, public information, and education programs.

In the meantime, you can get all of your questions about opting out and help opting out from this website. 

Teachers can read this toolkit, which answers teachers’ frequently asked questions and addresses the lies of the unions:  https://www.forkidsandcountry.org/teachers-toolkits/ 

Then go to the menu item “Teacher Freedoms and Protections” for all you need to opt out (letters, legal help if needed, liability insurance from independent organizations and more:  https://www.forkidsandcountry.org/ 

This is a great deal of information. At the very least, direct every teacher who wants out of their union to visit the MyJanusRights.org website. 

Support the Rule of Law, Not Simply Law Enforcement

Conservatives seem to bend over backwards to protect police officers, no matter what.

I do want law enforcement to do their jobs. What I have begun to realize in some circumstances, however, is that police officers act as if they are above the law themselves.

One friend of mine called these rogue officers "lawless lawmen".

Steve Greenhut has called out the lawless, self-serving police officers associations, which protect these lawless lawmen.

All I can say is "Not a moment too soon."

Sorry, but police unions are just as troubling as other public-sector unions

During a speech to a conservative group about the state’s pension crisis several years ago, one member of the audience was upset that I focused so much attention on police and firefighter unions. He thought I should basically give those groups a pass, to which I replied that perhaps we should skip talking about pension issues altogether then, given that public-safety groups are the source of the bulk of the state’s pension-funding problem. In my view, it’s ridiculous to be upset at a problem caused by all public-sector unions, but only target those unions we don’t like.

Mr. Greenhut has done the right thing going after police and fire unions. They are not serving the public interest, including the police officers themselves. The good is that with the Janus decision, more police officers can leave their unions and not pay the unfair--and now unconstitutional--agency fees.

Unions protect unions. They do not serve workers, the cities, or the public.

This attitude is strangely prevalent among some conservatives. They are happy when I point to the ways the California Teachers Association and SEIU use union dues for political purposes, back rules that protect bad employees and resist reasonable reforms. Because of their overall support for police officers, however, these conservatives often don’t like to hear the truth about those unions, even though such unions operate in the same heavy-handed and undemocratic way as other public unions.

Greenhut should know that there are more conservatives, including activists like myself, who do not simply bow their knees to police officers and their associations. The rule of law is paramount, not the law enforcement officers. 

But I was surprised – shocked, actually – to read similar sentiments on the California Policy Center website, given CPC’s pioneering work unraveling the problems with public-sector unionization. In a recent column, the center’s Ed Ring complained about the solidarity of opposition among the state’s public-sector unions to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus decision, which freed government employees from being forced to pay dues to such unions.

That’s right on point, but then Ring made this observation: “While we’re on the topic of solidarity, why on Earth would PORAC (the Peace Officers’ Research Association of California) want to declare solidarity with the teachers’ union? There are legitimate reasons to criticize police unions, and police officers could probably operate just fine with civil service protection combined with the clout wielded by voluntary associations that didn’t engage in collective bargaining. But police unions did not destroy the effectiveness of law enforcement. They’re actually doing a pretty good job. The teachers’ union, on the other hand, has nearly destroyed public education.”

I would have to say that police officers associations are not going that great a job at all.

Greenhut explains why:

Like all unions, the police unions do a “pretty good job” for their members, if you define a “pretty good job” as securing an unsustainable level of pay and benefits for their members – and protecting virtually all of them from accountability. The problem is these unions don’t do a good job for the public, which pays their bills, suffers from the crowding out of public services and must live with the way officers perform their jobs.

That issue of protecting from accountability. I could not agree more with this frustrating outcome. Police officers are rarely held accountable. They misbehave, they get privately reprimanded, and then their back on the street. They can violate the rights of citizens, and hide behind the immunity of these police officers.

Any civil society requires law enforcement. It's not enough to have laws. We need people to ensure that those laws are followed, and since men are not angels, there is the ongoing tendency to violate those laws.

But what happens when the police officers themselves violate those laws? What happens when police seem more intent on protecting their interests than the public interest?

The nature of public unions is exactly the same, whether we’re talking about teachers, cops, firefighters, groundskeepers or prison guards. The CTA protects incompetent teachers and lets them receive full pay as they twiddle their thumbs in “rubber rooms,” while police unions assure that overly aggressive cops are back patrolling the streets unless they are convicted of a crime. The latter arguably is worse. That certainly has undermined the concept of community policing, as any number of highly publicized police shootings and dubious use-of-force instances illustrate.

Ouch! It's good that Greenhut is willing to speak the truth about this. I have experienced a growing cadre of arrogant police officers who stomp on citizens' rights in the name of public safety. I have witnessed, endured police officers not enforcing the rule of law or ensuring public safety. Trump supporters gather for safe protests, and they get led into violent, hostile crowds how harass, attack, and harm them.

The Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights, the California Supreme Court’s 2006 secrecy-enabling Copley decision and all those privacy laws and special protections that police unions have secured assure that the desires of the union members – not the public, which they are paid to protect and serve – are pre-eminent. Ring should have stuck to the right point: that police are best served with civil-service protections and voluntary associations.

Yes. I am glad to hear about these options. It is essential

Police unions have made it impossible for police chiefs to reform their departments, get rid of the small number of thugs within their midst, root out police corruption and privatize services. The 2014 Vergara decision revealed that a small percentage of unfit teachers miseducate large numbers of California students, causing a lifetime of harm.

It's worthwhile that Greenhut does talk about the "small number of thugs." Let's stress that there are many good police officers, and just because we don't like bein

One police officer pulled me over in Manhattan Beach two months ago because I was driving a rental car and had not turned on the headlights. He saved my life that day!

Likewise, a small number of problem officers – often protected from firing because of those union-secured protections – cause a large number of recurring problems for police departments and cause permanent harm to some citizens. “It has become a truism among police chiefs that 10 percent of their officers cause 90 percent of the problems,” according to a report from the federal National Institute of Justice. “Investigative journalists have documented departments in which as few as 2 percent of all officers are responsible for 50 percent of all citizen complaints.”

And yet those police officers are never disciplined. This is wrong, and we cannot continue to tolerate this. The country has thrown numerous fits over the corrupt and abusive teachers in schools who have harmed our children. These numbers must include the incompetent instructors, not just those teachers who molest and abuse students.

Union protections are the source of many taxpayer-funded liability payouts. But unions also dominate police departments’ training procedures, and tend to promote militarization and other policies that are designed to protect the officer at all costs, with the public being an afterthought at best.

Yep. Wow. The rot goes from the top down. I have dealt with sergeants and lieutenants who defend their worst police officers. Filing complaints against police officers is a supreme waste of time on the surface of it, since the internal affairs agencies will cover for their cops all the time. This is quite manifest in Southern California, sadly.

Here’s Ring again: “Public safety professionals realize the consequences of leftist policies. Every day they patrol and protect communities ravaged by welfare programs that have destroyed work ethics and dismantled nuclear families. Every day they cope with fallout from gang conflict and drug abuse. … Every day they have to mitigate these ongoing and escalating problems while looking over their shoulder to see if they’ve ‘profiled’ someone or committed some similar phony transgression. Every day they have to endure undeserved hostility, funded and fomented by anti-American leftist oligarchs, because of the isolated actions of a vanishingly few bad apples.”

It's good that Greenhut recognizes the millions of other public sector workers, and even moreso the private sector investors and entrepreneurs, who have to contend with general moral decay and cultural breakdown in our country.

It’s hard to unravel all those overheated clichés, but the police-union groups that Ring defends have had a far greater role in destroying the public-spirited nature of California policing than anti-American leftists. PORAC, for instance, runs a legal-insurance fund that pays the legal bills for police accused of crimes. And it’s not unnamed oligarchs who are behind California’s pension crisis or budget woes.

YES.

Police, by the way, aren’t the only employees who have to deal with societal breakdown. So do teachers, nurses and people in the private sector. Regarding all those problems that Ring deplores, note that the state’s police unions are supporters of many of the state’s most liberal politicians. Here are PORAC’s endorsements from the June primary, in which it backed Antonio Villaraigosa for governor.

Wow! Good point. Police officers have to deal with the dregs of society, so to speak. Yet these police officers associations continue to protect and promote these awful politicians who push this destruction of families and communities.

Ring is right that police unions don’t embrace all the wacky national left-wing political action nonsense supported by other unions. But police unions often back gun control and always back more public spending. They are among the state’s most notorious defenders of government secrecy and rarely hesitate flexing their political muscle to bring local governments to heel.

This I can attest to directly. I talked to two high-ranking sheriff's deputies in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "We don't like guns", they told us. Really? Yet they pack heat, right, but the rest of us little people can't. Seriously. 

The hypocrisy is just plain sickening. Not only that, but they told a friend of mine as well as myself that we should invest in having our own security at certain city council meetings. Peace officers are less and less inclined to protect the public, it seems.

Very sad, considering how much money they rake in from the taxpayers.

One now-defunct law firm that had represented dozens of the state’s police unions was proud of its “playbook” that detailed the way police unions can intimidate city councils, including work slowdowns and other dubious policies.  This is corrosive of public service. So is the way that police organizations fought bitterly against reforms to the state’s asset-forfeiture laws, which allow police agencies to take a person’s property – even if that person has never been convicted or even accused of committing a crime.

Disgusting, and yet no one bats an eyelash to stop this abusive practice.

California Policy Center has led the fight against excessive public pensions, but police unions were a main cause of the state’s pension crisis. Senate Bill 400 in 1999 was passed on behalf of the California Highway Patrol. It created a 50-percent retroactive pension increase for officers – a formula that subsequently spread across the state and led to the current pension mess. We all appreciate the work of police officers, just as we appreciate the work of teachers, but we shouldn’t let emotionalism get in the way of our analysis of the noxious effect of their unions.

SHAMEFUL.

This is wrong, and we cannot continue to tolerate lawless lawmen getting away with breaking the law or breaking the bank for their benefit.

Final Reflection

This article was a breath, a blast of fresh air. With all due respect to the good men and women who put their lives on the line for cities and countries throughout the state, no law enforcement officer is worth a six-figure salary every year. Sorry, but it's just too much. How many of us are going to keep paying for all the gadgets and goodies placed.

One good man I know, let's call him Frank, has served as a private security detail for me in times past. I support and embrace his service and commitment to protecting people like me. Yet even with him I had to say: "A city, a county, even a state government cannot continue to pay police officers $100k a year. There's simply not enough money to do it."

Besides, even the best of law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at every time. When seconds count, police officers are minutes away. That's just the life and times of everyday challenges. That's just the way it is.

It's time to restore the rights of citizens to protect themselves. We need full restoration of the right of citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves, to ensure that they can ward off criminals and subdue deviant hatemongers. The right to concealed-carry must be protected, as well, and the permit process needs to be streamlined to make it 

Criminals should fear citizens again. Police officers should protect citizens and their rights. It's also time for elected officials to stand their ground with law enforcement to ensure that they are treated fairly and adequately, but at the same time they do not get to gouge taxpayers in their respective cities.

Steven Greenhut is contributing editor for the California Policy Center. He is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Big Labor Stealing Money From Caregivers

The National Right to Work Foundation scored an epic victory before the United States Supreme Court following the ruling on Janus vs. AFSMCE.

Unfortunately, Big Labor, especially in the public sector, will not concede until freedom fighters have won every battle that they can on every level.

There is so much graft, waste, and corruption in Washington DC, and Big Labor is still taking big advantages of all this largesse.

Medicaid funding is meant for the in-home caregivers. For years, however, the Service Employees International Union was skimming the money for itself, when the funding needed to go to the caregivers and their patients.

This is wrong.

We need to step up and stop all of it!

Dear Arthur, I'm furious. Medicaid is supposed to be for those who need it most -- not Big Labor fat-cats. But since 2014, over $1 billion of Medicaid funds have been siphoned from disabled individuals and their care providers and stuffed into the political coffers of union bosses instead. All because the Obama Administration -- as a gift to their political backers -- rammed through a new Medicaid regulation. The good news is, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare (CMS) is considering a rule to put an end to Big Labor's and the Obama Administration's scheme. But the deadline to weigh in is tomorrow. That's why I'm delivering comments from citizens like you before CMS' deadline tomorrow. Will you add your name to the top of the stack of comments? Tell CMS "Repeal the Obama-era Medicaid Ruling" Add Your Name Today >> The law is clear -- taxpayer-funded Medicaid money must go directly to healthcare providers, many of whom are caring for their own family members in their own homes. But that didn't stop the Obama Administration from skirting the law and helping Big Labor pocket over $100 million a year for their political allies. That's over $1 billion in taxpayer money that was intended for the care of disabled individuals, and instead fuels union bosses' political conquests. And with the midterms right around the corner, you know union bosses are scheming to thwart our efforts by flooding the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare with comments of their own. That's why it's vital you speak out now by signing a comment to be submitted to the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare (CMS) in support of their proposed rule to put an end to Big Labor's illegal skim. The National Right to Work Foundation has been on the front lines fighting to halt the scheme. You see, the Foundation's U.S. Supreme Court victory in Harris v. Quinn declared it unconstitutional for states to force home care providers paid through Medicaid programs to pay union fees in 2014. But despite the ruling by the highest court in the land, union bosses are still reaping the rewards of their political privileges. In Riffey v. Rauner, the Foundation has been fighting through layers of courts on behalf of over 80,000 victims of an Illinois Medicaid skim to seek refunds of union fees...fees that shouldn't even have been seized in the first place. And even more care providers in nine more states are trapped in similar schemes. The Foundation has been advocating for these care providers for years. In 2017, the Foundation sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services to bring their attention to the issue. And earlier this year, I personally raised the issue with Trump Administration officials at the White House. Right now, you and I have an opportunity to finally hold Big Labor accountable for its schemes. The CMS is proposing to end the exception that turned a blind eye to Big Labor's Medicaid skimming. The new rule would make it clear that states cannot allow union bosses to intercept tax dollars intended to care for those in need. Your Foundation will soon file comments to support the CMS’ reforms. And by adding your support, you can stand with the Foundation to halt union bosses’ abuses and bring an end to the Medicaid skim. But you must act now. The deadline to submit public comments is TOMORROW -- Monday, August 13th. So please, click here and add your name to this comment: End the ongoing and illegal diversion of Medicaid funds from personal care providers. Rescind the exception that currently allows Medicaid money to be siphoned off to fund politically powerful, private third parties such as unions. To stop the abuse of taxpayer dollars, issue a rule making it clear that Medicaid funds must go directly to the care of disabled individuals as intended. Take enforcement actions to end the states' unlawful policies and ensure that Medicaid funds are paid directly to personal care givers, not diverted into unions' political coffers. This comment, along with the names of the thousands of supporters choosing to speak for justice, will be submitted at the deadline. Remember that the deadline is TOMORROW, so you must add your name at once. After you've added your name, I hope you will consider chipping in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more. Your contribution will allow me to contact even more Right to Work supporters and help provide the means to litigate cases like Riffey v. Rauner for home care providers to reclaim their unconstitutionally-seized forced dues. But most importantly, please add your name to support the CMS' proposed rule against the Obama Administration's ruling and to put an end to Big Labor's Medicaid scheme. Thank you, Mark Mix President, National Right to Work P.S. A billion-dollar Medicaid skim scheme has been diverting taxpayer funds from disabled individuals and their care providers and feeding the money into Big Labor's political warchest. Before tomorrow's deadline, please add your name to a comment supporting the CMS' proposed rule to end the scheme and ensure care providers receive their intended money. After you've added your name, I hope you will consider chipping in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses.  The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. The Foundation's mailing address is 8001 Braddock Road, Springfield, Virginia 22160. Its web address is www.nrtw.org/. To help the National Right to Work Foundation grow; please forward this to a friend. To view as a web page, please click this link: view online.

This message was intended for: arthurschaper@hotmail.com 

SCOTUS Rules for Worker Freedom and Free Speech

President Trump has had so much to celebrate this week, and so do the rest of us!

The Supreme Court just released their decision Janus v.s AFSCME, and the Court ruled in favor for worker freedom and free speech. For the last four decades, public sector unions have continued to exort agency fees from non-union members. All that money goes to liberal, left-wing, would-be progressive causes, all of which undermine the rule of law, individual liberty, and fiscal prudence.

Blue states are dying from financial asphyxiation because of public sector union lobbying, which is funded by coerced dues from union and non-union members. Union leaders have never faced the pressure of providing a good service or any kind of goods as long as members have been forced to join or at least to pay the dues.

This Supreme Court decision has been long in coming.

President Trump celebrated the restoration of worker freedom:

Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2018

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker also sent out his support for this decision, pointing out what he and his fellow Republicans had accomplished in 2011 to curb collective bargaining abuses:

SCOTUS today affirms what we did years ago - gives public servants the freedom to choose whether they want to be in a union or not. Pro-worker & pro-taxpayer! Great day!🇺🇸

— Governor Walker (@GovWalker) June 27, 2018

Right to Work Foundation: Judgment Day for Big Labor is Coming

"Judgment Day for Public Unions"
- The Atlantic


That's just one headline out of hundreds your Foundation is generating, Arthur.

With the oral arguments in your Foundation's Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case just days away, reporters are laying out the massive implications:

"Crushing blow..."

"...cripple Democratic-leaning labor unions..."

"...deal the death blow to public sector unions..."

"...could effectively act as a nationwide right-to-work law for the country's public-sector workers..."

"...labor movement's worst nightmare..."

That's what journalists predict a Supreme Court victory would mean in your Foundation's Janus case.

But it takes more than just press coverage to win at the Supreme Court.

An entire team of your Foundation's experienced attorneys have been preparing for months to present the best legal arguments for the Supreme Court to ultimately rule government sector forced unionism as incompatible with the First Amendment.

Our attorneys worked around the clock to draft legal briefs, research legal documents, respond to union arguments, coordinate amicus briefs, and perfect the arguments our attorneys will present at the nation's highest court.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

We know from past experiences and victories -- victories that paved the way for the current Janus case -- that legal costs can skyrocket amidst a heated battle at the Supreme Court.

In fact, we've seen federal judges calculate the cost of attorney fees to be well over $1 million for similar cases that reach the Supreme Court.

And since union bosses, their forced-dues-backed political allies and their sympathizers in the media have warned the entire progressive movement in this country will "crumble" without Big Labor's forced-dues control over public sector workers. . .

. . . The union bosses are more determined than ever.

Big Labor's legion of lawyers struck back and used use every legal tactic from past cases to delay and draw out the legal process as long as they could.

In fact, one longtime teacher union strategist predicted union lawyers could attempt to to delay the case long enough for a Justice poised to strike down forced dues to 'get run over by a bus.'

Make no mistake, union bosses will try anything to derail our case.

And even at this stage of the process, every curveball Big Labor throws at your Foundation's Janus case will drain more of our resources.

With the oral arguments set to begin next week, it's crucial your National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation reaches our Supreme Court Victory Fund goal of $80,000 by Thursday night's deadline.

Fortunately, a group of very generous supporters has agreed to DOUBLE every contribution, dollar-for-dollar, towards our efforts.

Even if you've already pitched in before, I hope you'll help us close the gap with a tax-deductible and matched donation of $15, $25, $50 or more right away.

I really appreciate your support in what is perhaps the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation's biggest Supreme Court case yet.

So please contribute below:

MATCHING GRANT DEADLINE: THURSDAY NIGHT

Pitch in $15 ($30 IMPACT!) immediately >>> 

Pitch in $25 ($50 IMPACT!) immediately >>> 

Pitch in $50 ($100 IMPACT!) immediately >>> 

Pitch in $75 ($150 IMPACT!) immediately >>> 

Pitch in $100 ($200 IMPACT!) immediately >>> 

Pitch in $250 ($500 IMPACT!) immediately >>> 

Sincerely,

Mark Mix
President, National Right to Work