|
Q and A with Tom McCabe, CEO of the Freedom Foundation
Since 2013, you've been CEO of the Washington-based Freedom Foundation. For 21 years prior, you ran the Building Industry Association of Washington. The Wall Street Journal described your two-decade tenure there as the "counterbalance to labor unions in Washington State." What kind of work does the Freedom Foundation do? Why have you expanded your reach into Oregon?
Our mission at the Freedom Foundation is to free government employees from the bondage of forced unionization. My entire team of happy warriors works each day to end union tyranny.
We have a unique four-pronged plan that includes:
Activation. Because the unions refuse to inform their "members" of their newly affirmed rights to opt out of union participation entirely, we do it for them. The Freedom Foundation has implemented a first-in-the-nation grassroots strategy in which we reach out to home childcare and healthcare providers through door-to-door canvassing, direct-mail campaigns, phone calls, social media and office visits.
Litigation. In addition to informing workers of their rights, the Freedom Foundation protects and defends those rights. We have seven attorneys on staff who've filed dozens of lawsuits on behalf of government workers who wish to free themselves from the grip of their union bosses.
Education. Through TV, radio, opinion editorials and other communications media, we expose the unions' tactics and make their leaders defend them.
Legislation.We put union bosses on the defense with legislative proposals to counter the lack of transparency for government unions.
In the past two years, more than 20,000 public employees in Oregon and Washington decided to opt out of their union as a result of our work to inform them of their rights. Those defections and our other efforts have cost their unions more than $27 million -- money that would otherwise have been used to elect politicians willing to pass laws that only enhance the unions' influence over the political system.
We expanded into Oregon in 2015 because we were asked by a number of concerned residents who recognized the government unions in Oregon -- like everywhere else -- are the most persistent and pernicious threat to free markets and limited accountable government.
In just two years, we've built a network of 500 donors in the state.
In early March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Janus v. AFSCME that challenges whether employees can be compelled to subsidize union advocacy. Janus gives the Supreme Court another chance to override the Abood (1977) precedent, which permits governments to force non-union public employees to pay "agency fees" or dues. A 4-4 Supreme Court split in Friedrichs v. CTA (2016) after Justice Scalia's death left Abood standing.
The Court's ruling is expected in June. How do you think the Court will rule? What will be the immediate and the long-term political damage to the power of public employee unions in Oregon and Washington?
The Freedom Foundation is the nation's recognized leader when it comes to cleansing union dollars from the political cycle. With an affirmative ruling in Janus, our work will expand to inform teachers, state employees and local employees they now have the ability to stop paying union dues and fees.
Our goal in the first 12 months after the ruling is issued is to extract 10 percent of teachers from both the Oregon and Washington Education Associations. In Oregon alone, this will cost the union $4 million annually in lost revenue.
We will also target government employees represented by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). I expect the results there to be similar -- a 10 percent defection rate.
Based on the unions' actions in the wake of Harris v. Quinn, we know they'll resist compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling by any means necessary. They will block the release of their members' names by filing frivolous lawsuits, which the Freedom Foundation's experienced team of attorneys will continue to defeat.
Short term, I expect the unions to have less money to spend on down-ballot campaigns, like legislative seats. Long term, our work enforcing Janus will level the playing fields in both Oregon and Washington.
The WSJ wrote about embattled Illinois Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner: "Rauner considers public employee unions to be a destructive force, because, he says, unlike those in the private sector, they help choose their negotiating partners through political activity. 'It is a form of corruption,' he says."
Because public employee unions consistently blur the distinction between political advocacy and collective bargaining, should government workers be allowed the right to collective bargaining? Do you think public employees should be able to organize, or does that organization just inherently drift to political advocacy?
The Freedom Foundation believes everyone should have the ability to make their own decisions when it comes to workplace representation. We respect every employee's right to choose even if we may disagree with the choices they ultimately make.
As for government employee unions, we agree with President Franklin Roosevelt, who believed the "process of collective bargaining cannot be transplanted into public service."
FDR knew then what we all know now -- that government unions elect the politicians/governors they bargain with.
These days, public-sector unions are literally an ATM machine from which liberal political candidates can make unlimited withdrawals -- using someone else's money. Once elected, the politicians return the favor by passing laws that grow the size of government, raise taxes and impose regulations that destroy the economy.
It's a vicious cycle that benefits one special interest and nobody else.
There is no path to expanded freedom and prosperity in the Pacific Northwest that doesn't include dramatically reducing the power of the union political machine.
In 2011, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed legislation that limited collective bargaining in Wisconsin. In 2012, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation prohibiting public employee unions from automatically deducting union dues from members' paychecks. In the 2016 presidential election, both Wisconsin and Michigan voted for Donald Trump, even though Wisconsin had voted Democrat in the seven previous presidential elections, and Michigan in the last six. Do you think the legislation enacted against the public employee unions in the years prior had much to do with these states flipping from blue to red in 2016?
A lot of experts have tried to explain how Trump managed to flip Michigan and Wisconsin, but the answer is very simple: Both states had passed right-to-work laws in the four years since the previous election.
You always hear about the vaunted Democratic "ground game," which includes an army of activists working the phone banks, knocking on doors, handing out literature, driving voters to the polls, etc. But what you don't always hear is that a huge number of these people are paid union workers ordered to help by their leadership.
Right-to-work laws didn't kill the unions in Michigan and Wisconsin, but they had a huge impact on the amount of money and manpower organized labor could devote to its pet causes, and you saw the results on Election Day.
Janus is going to bring right-to-work protections to the entire country, and it's going to flip more blue states to red. Today, no one could conceive of Washington and Oregon being part of that trend. But in 2012 you'd have said the same about Wisconsin and Michigan.
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that workers who were "partial public employees" (in this case home health care workers) did not have to pay forced union dues, overturning an Illinois lower court. In his majority opinion, Justice Alito wrote, "If we accepted Illinois' argument, we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support."
After the decision, the Freedom Foundation sent activists to visit more than 10,000 homes of child care and home health care workers in Oregon and Washington to let these employees know that they could opt of paying union dues that were as much as $1,000 a year in some cases. After the campaign, you reported that as many as 55 percent of home health care workers had quit paying dues to SEIU in Washington state. Was your campaign as effective in Oregon? Did the unions use any methods of intimidation to stop your efforts at the door?
The Freedom Foundation's opt-out campaign has enjoyed terrific success in both Washington and Oregon. When we talk to people -- particularly in their homes -- most choose to opt out of the union.
In Oregon, our efforts focused on encouraging care providers not to opt in to SEIU 503. We developed and implemented a "Decline to Sign" campaign that resulted in 13,000 caregivers in that state refusing to sign an SEIU membership card. That's more than 40 percent of the union's caregiver membership.
Several thousand more caregivers signed their membership cards and later regretted it, and now they want to leave SEIU 503. However, the union has established short, exclusive opt-out windows that make it virtually impossible to opt out. It's like "Hotel California." So the Freedom Foundation has been forced to sue SEIU on behalf of these care providers.
The unions utilize a variety of intimidation tactics designed to coerce members not to quit. Most despicable is the practice -- employed in both Washington and Oregon -- of forcing caregivers to attend mandatory, one-on-one sessions with a union organizer every year.
The union bullies exploit these captive-audience 30-minute meetings to pressure and intimidate attendees into signing membership cards. During these meetings, caregivers are harassed, cajoled, threatened and lied to by SEIU thugs.
My staff has documented dozens of instances in which these sessions result in the worker being reduced to tears due to the relentless pressure from trained bullies.
By the way, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee have both sanctioned these meetings.
In 2015, labor leaders in Washington state counter-attacked you, your family and the Freedom Foundation. Here's how the Guardian described those efforts:
Unions are so concerned about the foundation's efforts that they have created a new organization, the Northwest AccountabilityProject that seeks to expose and discredit the foundation. It, too, has made hard hitting videos, and it has gone house to house in Tom McCabe's neighborhood to distribute flyers attacking him as an extremist. The Accountability Project has also made disparaging robocalls to McCabe's neighbors and church congregants.
You enlisted your wife Susan to write a letter to your neighbors explaining the real purpose of your efforts. How emotionally difficult was it for you and your wife to be attacked and harassed in your neighborhood? Are these intimidation tactics what union leaders revert to whenever they are losing the argument?
I didn't "enlist" Susan to write a letter to our neighbors. She insisted on doing so.
She visited each one and explained why she and I both believe it's wrong to force a person to join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment.
Her letter said, in part, "It is disappointing to see unions resort to harassment and intimidation, and no fun when you're the target. I hope you can appreciate this is a cause my husband believes in and that he has no intention of walking away."
By the way, George Will in December wrote a column about the Freedom Foundation in which he mentioned the personal attacks on my family. He wrote, "McCabe's neighbors are mostly not kindred spirits, but he has lived among them for 28 years and they remain unconvinced that he is Lucifer, son of the morning, fallen from heaven."
Sadly, I believe government union leaders will continue these bullying tactics whenever they find themselves losing members. But when you're over the target, you take flak.
The Freedom Foundation is freeing thousands of workers from union bondage and, as a result, we're in the unions' crosshairs.
I'm privileged to have such a courageous staff and board of directors. The fight against union corruption takes perseverance and guts.
In 2016, the Freedom Foundation published a study chronicling political spending by Oregon's Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503. Here's what your report showed:
- Oregon's SEIU raised more than $28 million from its members in 2016.
- $7 million of that $28 million was shipped to SEIU's Washington D.C. office for political work.
- $1.5 million was spent to fund the Measure 97 campaign (a ballot measure to raise taxes on Oregon businesses) that was rejected by 60 percent of Oregon voters, and to fund "Our Oregon" the group that put the measure on the ballot.
- More than $500,000 was spent on lobbying efforts by political advocacy groups.
In the face of this report, how can Oregon's public employee unions argue that coerced or mandatory dues don't significantly go to political activities and therefore violate the First Amendment rights of their members? Why wouldn't the Supreme Court rule 9-0 in the Janus case? Why must it split along partisan lines?
When the unions say they're spending X on politics and Y on collective bargaining, they're referring only to the amount they spend on direct political donations and in-kind contributions. And for private-sector unions, that's an accurate number.
But the fact is, you can't make that distinction for government employee unions. When SEIU, AFSCME or the teachers' unions negotiate a raise for their members, the money doesn't come out of profits. It comes out of your pocket and mine when taxes have to be raised or services cut.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly said a worker's dues can't be spent on politics without his or her consent. By definition, everything a government employee union does is inherently political. Consequently, workers shouldn't be compelled to pay for any of it.
As for the court, it's a political body that makes political decisions.
Is the media in the Northwest capable of reporting these issues in an accurate and substantive way?
Capable? Yes.
Willing? Not in my experience.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff in Janus and overturns the 1977 Abood ruling, what can we expect from the unions in the way of a counter-attack? How much, and how fast, could politics change in the Northwest?
If the unions were run like a business, they'd anticipate Janus and immediately begin a marketing program to convince their members not to leave. But old habits die hard, and the unions will once again turn to liberal governors and legislatures for protection.
In Washington, for example, SEIU has already asked Gov. Inslee to privatize homecare providers because the Supreme Court decision doesn't impact private employees. Not surprisingly, Inslee went along with their scheme.
Taxpayers in Washington will pay an additional $11 million per year as a result, just so SEIU can circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court and deny its members their First Amendment rights.
Politics could change dramatically in the Pacific Northwest if the teachers' union and the state employees' union began shedding members. But that will require a massive campaign to tell workers about their "new" rights and protect them when they choose to exercise them.
Back to Top
| 
