8 Aug 2020
6 Aug 2020

National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice for State of Ohio Employees Freed from Illegal OCSEA Union Dues Scheme

Posted in News Releases

Notice explains that workers under OCSEA union power can freely cut off union dues deductions, warns employees against signing away their rights

Columbus, OH (August 6, 2020) – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys today issued a special legal notice to State of Ohio employees regarding their First Amendment rights under the Janus v. AFSCME US Supreme Court case. The notice comes after an estimated 28,000 State of Ohio workers were freed of restrictions in exercising those rights as a result of a lawsuit against the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA, AFSCME Council 11) union brought by a group of State of Ohio employees with free legal representation from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The class-action lawsuit Allen v. AFSCME challenged OCSEA’s “maintenance of membership” policy that blocked workers from exercising their right to end union dues deductions except for a brief “escape period” once every three years at the expiration of the union monopoly bargaining contract.

Right to Work attorneys argued that the restriction was unconstitutional under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, which was argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys. In Janus, the Court struck down mandatory union fees for public sector workers as an infringement of their First Amendment rights. It also ruled that the government can only deduct union dues or fees with an individual’s affirmative consent, including a knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to fund union activities.

As a result of this lawsuit’s settlement, union officials have given up their attempts to enforce the coercive policy based on union-designed “dues deduction” cards, which Foundation staff attorneys argued failed to meet the standard laid out in Janus. This means approximately 28,000 workers are now free to stop dues at any time.

The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/ohio-janus/.

The notice explains the simple process by which state employees can exercise their right to end dues deductions, complete with sample resignation letters. It also warns employees that OCSEA union bosses may solicit them to sign new dues deduction forms which are not covered by the terms of the settlement. In light of that, the notice reminds workers that under Janus no State of Ohio worker can be forced to sign a union dues deduction form as a condition of employment, no matter what union agents may tell them.

“OCSEA intends to solicit employees to sign new membership and dues deduction cards that purport to restrict when employees can stop the deduction of union dues from their wages,” the notice reads.

“All State of Ohio public workers must be aware that they cannot be forced into abandoning their First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing an unwanted union hierarchy just to keep their jobs,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Any State of Ohio public servant who is falsely told that they must sign a union dues deduction form should contact the Foundation for free legal assistance in defending their Janus rights.”

The recent settlement is not the only time Ohio public employees have with National Right to Work Foundation legal aid successfully challenged union boss attempts to limit their rights.

Seven other Ohio public employees won the first-in-the-nation victory against unconstitutional “escape periods” with Foundation aid in January 2019, after they filed a class-action federal lawsuit challenging a similar policy created by AFSCME Council 8 bosses. They won a settlement ending the restrictions for themselves and their coworkers. That win was followed by two other Ohio public workers, Connie Pennington and Donna Fizer, successfully ending “escape period” restrictions with Foundation assistance in 2019.

5 Aug 2020

Labor Board Prosecuting WV Teamsters Union for Discriminatory Pay Scheme, Now Seeks Compensation for Affected Employees

Posted in News Releases

Tygart Center employee’s NLRB charges challenged scheme which gave union stewards more pay than other employees in clear violation of federal law

Fairmont, WV (August 5, 2020) – In a case brought for Donna Harper by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 6 has issued an amended complaint against Teamsters Local 175 for imposing a discriminatory pay scheme on Harper and her coworkers at Tygart Center at Fairmont Campus. Tygart Center agreed to this discriminatory pay arrangement in the union bargaining agreement.

In 2019 Harper obtained free legal aid from Foundation staff attorneys in filing charges against the union for imposing the unlawful provision, under which Teamsters union stewards were paid more per hour than other employees. NLRB Region 6 issued a complaint on this issue in June, and now has amended its complaint to ask for a more complete remedy. The complaint now “seeks an Order requiring payment to the unit employees of the amount equal to the additional monetary benefit paid to” shop stewards under the policy.

NLRB Region 6’s amended complaint now incorporates a remedy requested by Foundation staff attorneys in a separate case against the Tygart Center for the role it played in the scheme. In the NLRB-imposed settlement in that case, Tygart Center officials agreed to only stop paying Teamsters union stewards more per hour than other employees going forward. Foundation attorneys had argued that employees should have gotten compensation for the difference in pay in the past created by the illegal scheme because it “denied a benefit to every employee who was not a Union steward.”

The case against the Teamsters will now be tried before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge.

Foundation staff attorneys also filed an amicus brief for Harper in the years-long legal battle waged by AFL-CIO union lawyers to overturn West Virginia’s Right to Work law. Under a Right to Work law, no private or public sector employee can be forced to fund union activities as a condition of getting or keeping a job. This protection was unanimously upheld by the West Virginia Supreme Court in April 2020.

“Ms. Harper stood up against a blatantly discriminatory policy enforced by her employer at the behest of Teamsters union bosses, and this amended complaint puts her one step closer to ensuring her and other Tygart Center employees’ rights are vindicated,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “That Teamsters bosses were willing to impose a scheme so clearly illegal demonstrates how out of touch they are with the rank-and-file workers they claim to represent, and how accustomed they had become to an environment where workers had to financially support them or be fired.”

Mix added: “Fortunately, because Mountain State workers now have the protection of Right to Work, West Virginia union bosses have to secure the voluntary support of workers instead of being allowed to threaten workers to pay up or be fired.”

1 Aug 2020

Foundation Defends NMB Rule Simplifying Votes to Remove Railway and Airline Unions

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Brief opposes union lawsuit challenging a simplified decertification procedure

Trump NMB member Kyle Fortson was Chairman while the Board initiated changes to the process by which air and rail employees could vote out a union, following Foundation advice

Trump NMB member Kyle Fortson was Chairman while the Board initiated changes to the process by which air and rail employees could vote out a union, following Foundation advice.

WASHINGTON, DC – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys filed a legal brief in United States District Court last month for a flight attendant, opposing an effort led by the AFL-CIO to overturn a recent rule by the National Mediation Board (NMB) that simplifies the process for workers hoping to vote out a union they oppose.

Foundation staff attorneys filed the amicus brief for Allegiant Airlines flight attendant Steven Stoecker to defend the NMB’s rule that removed arbitrary barriers to decertification elections under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). They also filed the brief for the Foundation itself, which has provided free legal representation to numerous workers in the railroad and airline industries under the jurisdiction of the RLA, which the NMB is charged with enforcing.

With Foundation Aid, Flight Attendant Defends Rights from Union Assault

The Foundation’s Strategic Litigation Program’s 1983 victory in Russell v. NMB allowed workers to terminate union monopoly representation under the RLA. However, removing an unwanted union under the old NMB rules required an unnecessarily complex process in which workers had to create and solicit support for a fake “straw man” just to vote out the incumbent union.

Under the NMB’s new rules, finalized in July 2019, a majority of workers in a bargaining unit can simply petition for a direct secret-ballot vote to decertify a union they oppose.

Stoecker had attempted to remove the Transport Workers Union (TWU) from its monopoly bargaining status in his workplace from 2014 to 2016, but those attempts ultimately were

unsuccessful under the old “straw man” election rules. As a result, the TWU remains the monopoly bargaining representative over his workplace. “The National Mediation Board’s Final Rule simplifies the union selection or rejection process under the Railway Labor Act and erases nonstatutory barriers that hinder employees’ efforts to freely choose or reject a representative,” reads the amicus brief filed by Foundation staff attorneys. “The brief responds to a lawsuit filed by labor unions, which benefited from the complexities of the ‘straw man’ process, to challenge the new rule and the Board’s statutory authority to establish it.”

Foundation Advocacy Ended Needlessly Complex “Straw Man” Process

Before the NMB adopted the Final Rule last year, workers like Stoecker had to sign authorization cards designating an employee to be the “straw man” representative even though that employee had no intention of representing the unit. In the election that followed, the ballot options included the name of the union that workers wished to decertify, the name of the “straw man,” the option for a write-in candidate, and, confusingly, the option for “no union.”

Under the old guidelines, workers who voted for either the “straw man” or “no union,” in hopes to oust union officials, would unknowingly be splitting the vote opposed to unionization, as votes counted for these options were not tallied together but separately. The NMB’s final rule allows workers to vote out union representatives directly, without the cumbersome and confusing prior scheme.

“That union bosses are suing the National Mediation Board for adopting this commonsense reform shows they are far more concerned with maintaining their power than respecting the right of rank-and-file workers to decide whether or not they actually want to remain in union ranks,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Foundation has long advocated this type of change in the union decertification process. We are pleased the NMB has — as we called upon it to do in comments filed last year — finally made this commonsense reform.

“Ultimately the Railway Labor Act has many fundamental problems that require legislative action, not the least of which is that it grants union bosses the power to have workers fired for nonpayment of union dues or fees even in states with Right to Work laws,” observed Mix. “That makes it all the more important that while we wait for more sweeping reforms, workers are not trapped in forced-dues ranks simply because of the unnecessarily complex ‘straw man’ decertification process.”

30 Jul 2020

Shamrock Foods Driver Asks Labor Board to End “Successor Bar” Policy Blocking Workers’ Right to Remove Unwanted Union

Posted in News Releases

Appeal: Workers should not be trapped in union ranks and denied decertification votes when employer changes

Boise, ID (July 30, 2020) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Idaho-based Shamrock Foods delivery driver Curtis Thomason is appealing a decision by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 27 which dismissed a petition signed by him and a majority of his coworkers for a vote to remove Teamsters Local 483 union bosses from power at his workplace. Thomason’s appeal asks the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., to overturn the so-called “successor bar” doctrine, which blocks employees’ right to hold a vote to decertify a union for up to a year if a successor employer has recently taken over operations in a workplace.

According to the decision by Region 27, Shamrock Foods acquired operations in October 2019 at the two warehouses where Teamsters Local 483 union bosses held bargaining power. Shamrock began bargaining talks with Teamsters officials in December 2019. Thomason submitted a petition for a decertification vote signed by well over the threshold of employees necessary to initiate such an election on May 26, 2020. At that point, Shamrock Foods and Teamsters officials still hadn’t finalized a monopoly bargaining contract, and hadn’t even discussed economic terms of a contract.

Region 27’s decision ruled that Thomason and his coworkers’ petition, because it was submitted “within six months of the first bargaining date” between Shamrock Foods and Teamsters officials, should be blocked by the “successor bar.” This policy does not appear in the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is charged with enforcing, but is instead the product of decisions by prior NLRB majorities favoring union bosses.

Thomason’s Foundation-backed appeal argues that the “successor bar” arbitrarily curbs employee free choice just to protect union officials from being ousted, saying “the successor bar is designed to protect incumbent unions and exalt their interests over Mr. Thomason’s and his co-workers’ free choice rights.” It also points out that “the successor bar’s paternalistic notion that employees suffer ‘anxiety’ in all corporate reorganizations, and are therefore incapable of deciding for themselves whether the incumbent union is worth keeping, is fatuous.”

In April, following several rounds of comments from the Foundation, the NLRB issued final rules substantially eliminating three other non-statutory policies that union bosses often manipulate to bar workers from exercising their right to vote out unpopular unions. Among the policies nixed was one that allowed union bosses to file “blocking charges” containing unrelated allegations of employer misconduct to block secret-ballot employee votes on whether to oust a union. NLRB regional offices often block employee votes following a “blocking charge” without even a hearing into whether the supposed employer conduct and employees’ disaffection with the union are linked.

“It is ridiculous that the NLRB has let union bosses block employees’ right to a secret-ballot vote on whether or not a union deserves to stay in power at their workplace based merely on a change in employers,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “If anything, changes in ownership of a company should be automatic grounds for a decertification vote, because to the extent there was ever support for the union it was to deal with the previous employer, not the new ownership.”

“We urge the NLRB in Washington to immediately overturn this anti-worker ‘bar’ policy and ultimately do away with all non-statutory policies which stifle the right of rank-and-file workers to freely decide who their voice will be in the workplace,” Mix added.

28 Jul 2020

National Right to Work President Encouraged by NLRB Proposed Rule Protecting Workers’ Privacy in Run Up to Unionization Votes

Posted in News Releases

Rule imposed by Obama NLRB forced employers to hand over employee private email and phone numbers to union organizers

Washington, DC (July 28, 2020) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced today proposed rulemaking regarding its election procedures. This proposal would eliminate a requirement imposed by the Obama NLRB in 2014 that employers must hand over workers’ private information to union organizers, including phone numbers and email addresses, even over the objection of individual workers.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented that the NLRB’s proposal is a needed safeguard for the privacy of employees, protecting them from union boss coercion:

“Today the NLRB takes a necessary step towards ending a gross invasion of workers’ privacy inherent in the Obama Board’s deeply flawed 2014 Ambush Election Rule. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which has provided free legal aid to numerous workers victimized by union boss retaliation utilizing workers’ private information, cited the privacy issues with handing over employees’ personal private contact information both in opposition to the 2014 rule and again in 2018 comments to the new NLRB.

“The Board should resist any calls to delay or extend its rulemaking deadlines announced today so it can implement these common sense worker privacy protections as swiftly as possible.”

The ambush election rules were rushed out on December 15, 2014, the last day of former union lawyer Nancy Schiffer’s term on the NLRB. The NLRB had previously rushed the regulations out before former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer Craig Becker’s term expired in December 2011, but they were later invalidated by a federal district court in 2012 on procedural grounds.

In addition to submitting comments to the Obama NLRB opposing the rule when it was first announced in 2014, Foundation staff attorneys helped three construction workers whose privacy had been violated under the policy to join a lawsuit in April 2015 challenging it. Veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman also testified before the US House of Representatives on the dangers of the policy in 2015.

27 Jul 2020

Oklahoma Sysco Employees Successfully Remove Unwanted Teamsters Union from Their Workplace

Posted in News Releases

Because union officials chose not to face employees’ will in secret-ballot vote, majority-backed employee petition asking Sysco to remove union stands

Oklahoma City, OK (July 27, 2020) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Sysco Oklahoma warehouse employee Henry Weilmeunster and his coworkers have successfully removed an unwanted Teamsters union from their workplace. The win comes after Teamsters union bosses backed down from their attempts to challenge the validity of a petition Weilmeunster and a majority of his coworkers signed asking Sysco to withdraw recognition of the union.

Weilmeunster and his coworkers achieved their victory by taking advantage of the rights won by Foundation staff attorneys in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) 2019 Johnson Controls decision. In Johnson Controls, the NLRB ruled that an employer can withdraw recognition from a union if it receives a majority-backed employee petition opposing the union within 90 days of a monopoly bargaining contract expiring. Union officials then have a 45-day window to contest such a withdrawal of recognition, but only by filing for a secret-ballot vote among the employees in the workplace on whether the union should stay.

In December 2019, Weilmeunster submitted to the NLRB a petition requesting a secret-ballot vote to remove the union. Anticipating that union officials might file “blocking charges” against Sysco to derail his efforts to oust the union, Weilmeunster also gave a petition to Sysco asking that it withdraw recognition of the Teamsters union at the first available opportunity. Both requests were supported by a majority of his coworkers.

As Weilmeunster expected, Teamsters union officials filed “blocking charges” with the NLRB to challenge his decertification petition and stop any vote. Union bosses often use “blocking charges” to stop employees from exercising their right to remove them from workplaces. These abusive charges usually contain allegations of unrelated wrongdoing by the employer.

Though NLRB Region 14 officials in January at Teamsters officials’ behest blocked Weilmeunster and his coworkers’ request for a decertification vote, Sysco ultimately withdrew recognition from the Teamsters union based on the showing of majority employee support for withdrawal in Weilmeunster’s petition. Under Johnson Controls, Teamsters honchos had a 45-day window to file for a secret-ballot election to reinstall the union, but did not do so – apparently because they feared an election loss. With union officials’ blocking charges now settled or dropped, Sysco’s withdrawal of recognition stands unopposed and the workers’ request to be free of the Teamsters has been fully and finally honored.

“Although it’s certainly good news that Mr. Weilmeunster and his coworkers finally succeeded in removing an unwanted Teamsters union, it’s telling that union officials sought to use lawyers to trap workers in union ranks, instead of just requesting a secret ballot election to determine the employees’ wishes,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This case demonstrates why Johnson Controls is important: Union bosses should not be allowed to maintain monopoly power over workers through legal maneuvering when there is clear evidence that a majority of workers want the union out of their workplace.”

23 Jul 2020

Mark Mix in the Washington Examiner: Why We Should End ‘Anti-Democratic’ Government Union Boss Monopoly Bargaining Powers

Posted in In the News

An op-ed from National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix appeared in the Washington Examiner today which exposes the detrimental effects of monopoly bargaining privileges for government union bosses.

Mix explains that giving union officials the power to force workers under their so-called “representation” not only allows them to put a massive burden on taxpayers with wasteful contracts, but also stops the worst government employees from being held accountable for wrongdoing:

The problem with government unions protecting bad and dangerous workers is not isolated to police departments. In New York City, for instance, firing bad teachers has long been next to impossible. One teacher accused of sexual misconduct against students was “warehoused” for 20 years, collecting $1.7 million from taxpayers despite not setting foot in a classroom. Others continue to receive payments under similar arrangements as well.

Despite calls for reform, especially around police unions, most fail to address the central role played by government union monopoly bargaining power. So-called “collective bargaining” in the government sector is inherently anti-democratic. It forces officials elected to set public policy to “negotiate” that policy with a special interest group whose aims are frequently in direct opposition to the public’s interests. It also forces good civil servants to associate with union officials who will bend over backward to shield their corrupt or inefficient coworkers from any kind of accountability.

Read the full article here.

22 Jul 2020

Foundation Case for Mountaire Worker Could Nix Longstanding Curb on Employee Rights

Posted in In the News

The Federalist Society just published an article by veteran Foundation staff attorney Glenn Taubman, which demonstrates how Selbyville, DE, Mountaire Farms employee Oscar Cruz Sosa and his coworkers’ effort to vote United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials out of their workplace now has the potential to abolish, or at least significantly limit, a longstanding restriction on worker rights at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Taubman first explains that the restriction, the “contract bar,” exists nowhere in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and arbitrarily stifles the free choice of workers:

“Under that Board-created doctrine, employees are forbidden from decertifying their incumbent union representative for as long as three years, simply because the union and employer have reached a collective bargaining agreement. The text of the NLRA is silent about such a bar limiting employees’ rights. Indeed, the only ‘bar’ Congress established in the NLRA is a one-year ‘election bar’ (no more than one valid election can be held per year), which is a far cry from the Board-created three-year contract bar…”

Taubman goes on to recount how UFCW lawyers kept claiming that the non-statutory “contract bar” should have blocked Cruz and his fellow employees from having the vote they petitioned for, even after a regional NLRB official had ruled against them:

“In the Mountaire Farms case, employee Oscar Cruz Sosa collected a petition from more than 30% of his fellow employees and filed it with the NLRB seeking an election. The United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) union responded by asserting that the election was barred by the contract bar, since the petition was filed in year two of a five-year agreement. However, the Director of NLRB Region 5 held that the compulsory dues clause in the contract was facially unlawful because it lacked a mandatory 30-day grace period, and therefore no contract bar applied.”

The union lawyers immediately requested that the NLRB in Washington review this decision and in fact expand the “contract bar” to apply even to their invalid contract. But, as Taubman says, Foundation staff attorneys countered that the NLRB should, if it decided to review the case, consider doing away with or significantly limiting the “contract bar.” And that’s just what the NLRB did:

“Alternatively, Mr. Cruz Sosa argued that if the Board granted the UFCW union’s Request for Review, it should take up the entire contract bar doctrine with a view towards overruling it or significantly shortening it.

“On June 23, 2020, the Board granted the Union’s request for review of the regional director’s Decision and Direction of Election, finding that it raised substantial issues warranting review…On July 7, 2020, the Board issued a Notice and Invitation to File Briefs, allowing the public to weigh in on the continuing viability of the contract bar doctrine.”

Read the whole piece here.

More on the case can be found here and here. Legal documents are available on the NLRB’s case page.

20 Jul 2020

University of California Workers Challenge Restrictions on Janus Rights

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2020 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Class-action lawsuit targets state and union for illegally blocking dues revocations

Former presidential candidate and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders gained the endorsement of UPTE union bosses, who are saddling employees with arbitrary restrictions on their First Amendment rights

Former presidential candidate and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders gained the endorsement of UPTE union bosses, who are saddling employees with arbitrary restrictions on their First Amendment rights.

SAN DIEGO, CA – In March, UC San Diego Health Service Desk Analysts Pablo Labarrere and Sam Doroudi filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) union and the University of California for seizing dues from their paychecks in violation of their First Amendment rights.

With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Labarrere and Doroudi contend that the dues seized from them and their colleagues are unconstitutional under the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the Court ruled that deducting union dues from any public sector worker’s paycheck without his or her affirmative and knowing consent breaches the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The class-action lawsuit names University of California President Janet Napolitano as a defendant for the university system’s role in perpetrating this scheme. It also names California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as a defendant for the state’s enforcement of the illegal union dues policy.

UPTE Bosses Enforce Phony Restrictions on Janus Rights

According to the lawsuit, UC San Diego Health officials made all new employees “believe that it was a condition of employment to either join the union as full members or pay forced fees as non-members” during a mandatory orientation session. New employees were given and told to sign “dues deduction authorization cards” which provided that union officials would continuously collect dues from each employee’s paycheck unless a revocation letter was sent in a 30-day window before the annual anniversary of signing the card.

According to the lawsuit, the authorization cards did not explain, as Janus requires, that public sector employees “have a First Amendment right not to subsidize the union and its speech” and that signing the card would waive those rights. Labarrere and Doroudi eventually discovered their First Amendment Janus rights independently and sent letters to UPTE officials in December 2019 demanding that dues deductions be cut off. UPTE agents rejected both requests and continued to seize dues from Labarrere’s and Doroudi’s paychecks, ostensibly because they did not submit their requests within the “escape period” created by the union bosses.

The lawsuit contends that UPTE bosses are violating Labarrere’s and Doroudi’s First Amendment Janus rights by continuing to take dues from their paychecks without ever having received their “affirmative authorization and knowing waiver” of those rights. It also argues that the 30-day “escape period” illegally restricts Labarrere and Doroudi in the exercise of their Janus rights.

The class-action lawsuit additionally seeks to stop UPTE bosses and the University of California system from enforcing the scheme against any other workers, and require UPTE officials to return all dues and fees to any employees in the workplace that had their First Amendment rights violated because of the policy.

Workers Continue to Abolish “Escape Periods” With Foundation Legal Aid

Since the Janus decision, Foundation staff attorneys have litigated at least 14 cases around the country for thousands of workers whose First Amendment Janus rights have been infringed upon with union-created “escape periods.” Six of these cases have already been settled favorably for the plaintiff employees, providing relief and refunds for them and hundreds of their coworkers, while eliminating the restrictions for tens of thousands more.

In one of those cases, Michael McCain, a math professor at a community college in Ventura County, California, fought an illegal “escape period” foisted on his workplace by American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union officials, by filing a federal lawsuit in the District Court for the Central District of California. Ultimately, instead of facing Foundation staff attorneys in court, AFT officials settled the case and paid refunds to all workers who had dues seized because of the illegal policy.

“The Supreme Court made it absolutely clear in Janus that union officials violate public workers’ First Amendment rights when they seize union dues without their consent,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Yet over a year and a half after the decision, California union bosses — with the assistance of state officials — continue to subject the state’s public servants to schemes that violate these rights, all to fill union coffers with more illegal dues.”