Forgery is supposed to be a crime.
Signing someone’s name on a document that indicates they support a union is against the law.
Forcing someone to join and financially support a union is, at the least, unethical.
But in three court cases, judges have allowed such actions, according to the Freedom Foundation, a public policy organization that investigates and challenges alleged abuses by public unions, and is challenging those decisions in court.
Two appeals were filed in Oregon, and one in Washington state. But these are not the only such cases for the Freedom Foundation, which has offices in five states. It reports involvement in at least a dozen similar cases.
“For generations, union membership and dues — or, alternatively, the payment of so-called ‘agency fees’ — were required in order to work for any branch of the government in states lacking right-to-work protections,” the Freedom Foundation explained in a press release. “That changed in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Janus v. AFSCME that mandatory union participation in the public workplace was a form of forced political speech, which violated the employee’s First Amendment rights.”
They filed appeals on Oct. 7 for these cases:
Cash Schiewe v. SEIU 503. Margo Cash Schiewe, an employee of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, wanted to opt out of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503 following the Janus ruling.
Instead, she was told she was obligated to join the union. Cash Schiewe later challenged that but was told she had signed an electronic membership form. No proof of that exists, according to her lawsuit.
Wright v. SEIU 503. Jodee Wright, who worked for the Oregon Health Authority, disputes a claim by SEIU 503 that she signed, using an Ipad, an authorization for dues deductions in October 2017. While the union failed to produce proof, it has continued to take dues from Wright.
Yates v. WFSE. Sharrie Yates, a medical assistant with Washington state Healthcare Authority, tried to opt-out of the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) in October 2018, but the union would not allow her to do so, claiming she had signed an electronic renewal form in June.
While Yates said she has proof she did not sign, the union continues to take dues from her pay.
Freedom Foundation lawyer Rebekah Millard said in the release the judges have taken a bizarre approach.
“In none of these cases does the lower court judge deny that forgery took place,” Millard said. “But in every case, they managed to find a reason why it didn’t matter. According to judges, neither the state nor the union can be held responsible for violating these employees’ First Amendment rights.”
She said the three public employees are out thousands of dollars. Millard told The Record that such blatant behavior must be opposed and stopped.
“These public employees have been forced to support political causes with which they disagree, without their consent — in fact — totally against their wishes,” she said. “It is not just the forgeries and loss of money, it is the fact that the money was used for political speech that is at issue here. As we continue to hear from people who have experienced this, it becomes more and more apparent that this is a systemic issue that must be addressed or government workers’ right to freedom of speech and association will become entirely illusory.”
All three appeals were filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: two from the U.S. District Court for Oregon, the third from the Western District of Washington
Millard told Legal Newsline she remains optimistic of success.
“The main issues in the current appeal involved whether the plaintiffs can bring a lawsuit under the First and Fourteenth Amendments for the forgeries,” she said. “I think odds of success are good on these legal issues. There has been some recent precedent in the Ninth Circuit that supports the Union’s position that the Constitution cannot be applied against them (the Belgau case), but these cases are distinguishable.”
Millard said most government union workers do not realize these things can and do happen.
“I would say that most government workers are not aware of such practices, and most union workers would certainly deny that anything like this happens,” she said. “However, the more people who come forward, the more impossible it becomes to hide, and the more obvious it is that there are no safeguards in place to prevent this happening.”
Millard said in addition to courtroom challenges, governments can get involved.
“Absolutely. We strongly encourage governmental entities to pass laws, regulations or even just to negotiate terms into their CBAs that would require some safeguards,” she said. “For example, an employer could require verification of signatures; an employer could ask for new authorization each year; an employer could send an email or other notice to employees. There are many ways that this could be prevented by simply providing some oversight of the process rather than leaving it entirely to the union — which is the problem in Oregon, California and Washington.”