Locke

Union Lawyers Welcome U.S. Solicitor General To Their Legal Team in Locke Supreme Court Case

Patrick Semmens — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:24:27 -0400

Yesterday, SCOTUSblog reported on the opposition by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys to the Solicitor General's self-contradictory motion for divided arguments in the Foundation's Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case. (For more background on the SG's unwelcome machinations and the Foundation's principled opposition, read this post.)

The SCOTUSblog post brings to light this new tidbit of news: "Jeremiah Collins, a lawyer for the respondent, said the union did not plan to file an opposition."

Of course he won't. The Solicitor General is making Big Labor's legal arguments. Why not add another lawyer to the union legal team at taxpayer expense?

Bush Administration -- Again -- Takes a Swipe at Employee Freedom

Stefan Gleason — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:48:23 -0400

The Bush Administration is arguing Big Labor's legal positions in court again.

Right to Work supporters recall the Bush Administration's lousy record when it comes to employee free choice and worker freedom. Solicitor General Paul Clement seemed to take pleasure in parroting union lawyer talking points in important legal proceedings like Davenport v. Washington Education Association. Before resigning in May, Clement took another swipe at employee freedom in Locke v. Karass, another Foundation case going to the Supreme Court.

Administration Lawyer Undercuts Another Foundation Case, Abruptly Resigns

Patrick Semmens — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:47:14 -0400

The cover story of the July/August issue of Foundation Action is now available for download here.

The story details former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement's efforts to undermine the Foundation's Locke v. Karass U.S. Supreme Court case. The article also shows that this isn't the first time that the Solicitor General, who recently-resigned his position, has undercut a Foundation Supreme Court case.

You can get your own free subscription to Foundation Action here.

Video Spotlight on Locke Supreme Court Case

Patrick Semmens — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:44:58 -0400

In the latest update to Right to Work's YouTube channel, Daniel Locke, lead plaintiff in the Foundation's Locke v. Karass Supreme Court case, discusses why he felt the need to file suit against Maine State Employees Association union officials.

Also in the video, Foundation president Mark Mix explains what is at stake in the case, and another Maine state employee, Mark Turek, discusses his decision to quit his job rather than be forced to pay union dues to a union he disagreed with.

Oral Argument Date Set in Foundation's Locke Supreme Court Case

Patrick Semmens — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:47:22 -0400

The U.S. Supreme Court has set the date for oral argument in Locke v. Karass, which was brought to the High Court by Foundation attorneys on behalf of a group of Maine state employees.

Arguments will be at 11am on October 6, 2008 - the opening day of the the Supreme Court's session.

The case deals with the criteria for determining what workers can be forced to pay to a union as a job condition. For more on the Locke case stay tuned for an upcoming video.

DC Examiner: Unions Should Stop Tithing Nonmembers With ‘Fees’

Patrick Semmens — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:05:39 -0400

Today's DC Examiner has an editorial about the Foundation's upcoming US Supreme Court case, Daniel Locke v. Karass.

Here's an excerpt from the editorial:

Editorial: Coercion a Power Union Officials "Never Should Have Enjoyed in the First Place"

Justin Hakes — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:25:45 -0500

And speaking of which, a Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial today highlights the National Right to Work Foundation's recent work at the U.S. Supreme Court. The paper notes of the Locke case the High Court took up yesterday:

"The case is the latest instance of the justices addressing issues that could erode the power of labor unions," noted The Associated Press.

Yet, if limiting the ability of organized labor to use coercion to fund its agenda erodes union power, it's power these groups never should have enjoyed in the first place.

Couldn't have put it better ourselves. The AP also notes that the Foundation's 14 U.S. Supreme Court cases have all been "targeting unions," but fails to mention that every single case was on behalf of employees that wanted nothing to do with them.

No one should be forced to join or pay dues to an unwanted union, and that principle is at the very heart of each case the Foundation takes up.

National Right to Work Foundation Makes 14th Trip to U.S. Supreme Court

Justin Hakes — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:52:09 -0500

Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme to take up the National Right to Work Foundation's Locke case on behalf of employees marks the Foundation's 14th trip to the High Court. Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason summed up the case this way:

“No one should be compelled to pay union dues just to get or keep a job. But where union officials have obtained this special
privilege from the legislature, they still have no legal authority to
make non-union public servants in Maine pay for union activity across America.”

The National Right to Work Foundation's most recent victory at the High Court came in 2007, under Davenport v. WEA, a crucial defensive victory. In that case, the Court ruled that union officials do not have a "constitutional right" to spend employees' forced union dues on political causes that they oppose.