Behind a Key Anti-Labor Case, a Web of Conservative Donors

[NeoConsSuck]

In the summer of 2016, government workers in Illinois received a mailing that offered them tips on how to leave their union. By paying a so-called fair-share fee instead of standard union dues, the mailing said, they would no longer be bound by union rules and could not be punished for refusing to strike.

“To put it simply,” the document concluded, “becoming a fair-share payer means you will have more freedom.”

The mailing, sent by a group called the Illinois Policy Institute, may have seemed like disinterested advice. In fact, it was one prong of a broader campaign against public-sector unions, backed by some of the biggest donors on the right. It is an effort that will reach its apex on Monday, when the Supreme Court hears a case that could cripple public-sector unions by allowing the workers they represent to avoid paying fees.

One of the institute’s largest donors is a foundation bankrolled by Richard Uihlein, an Illinois industrialist who has spent millions backing Republican candidates in recent years, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/business/economy/labor-court-conservatives.html

[Hortensis]

1. Reading SourceWatch on Illinois Policy Institute alone

is like reading the backgrounds of the creeps and criminals who are Trump's appointees. No coincidence. They are all allied one way or many, all through the Koch alliance, which includes the Heritage Foundation on which its parent organization was modeled to "capture the states."

The Illinois organization is a member of State Policy Network (SPN),

ALEC's "policy, communications, and litigation arm giving the cookie-cutter ALEC agenda a sheen of academic legitimacy and state-based support. Many SPN groups are and often write ALEC "model bills."

In the states, SPN groups increasingly peddle cookie-cutter "studies" to back the cookie-cutter ALEC agenda, spinning that agenda as indigenous to the state and giving it the aura of academic legitimacy. Many SPN groups, such as the Mackinac Center in Michigan, have been accused of lobbying in their states, in violation of IRS rules for non-profit "charitable" organizations operating in 49 states, Puerto Rico, Canada, England."

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Illinois_Policy_Institute

[CousinIT]

2. From EPI: "The organizations financing the attack on unions""

http://www.epi.org/publication/janus-and-fair-share-fees-the-organizations-financing-the-attack-on-unions-ability-to-represent-workers/

Over the last decade, a number of cases attacking the rights of public-sector union members have been quietly working their way through the courts and, finally, up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The most recent of these challenges is Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on February 26. If the court rules for Janus, it will likely have the most significant impact on workers’ freedom to organize and bargain collectively in 70 years.

Janus is the third case to come before the Supreme Court in five years involving public-sector unions’ ability to collect “fair share” (or “agency”) fees. As this report will show, Janus, and the two fair share cases that preceded it, did not grow from an organic, grassroots challenge to union representation. Rather, the fair share cases are being financed by a small group of foundations with ties to the largest and most powerful corporate lobbies. These organizations and the policymakers they support have succeeded in advancing a policy agenda that weakens the bargaining power of workers. In Janus, these interests have focused their attack on public-sector workers—the workforce with the highest union density.

We examine the core group of organizations financing this litigation. By tracing the origins of these legal challenges, and explaining how the challenges target unions, we show that challenging fair share fees in the courts appears to be part of a broader billionaire-financed agenda to weaken unions and shift power away from ordinary workers.

Who is behind the fair share cases?

Litigating a case all the way to the United States Supreme Court is expensive: years of attorneys’ fees, court costs, and trial expenses add up. How is it that a few public-sector employees who seek to challenge union representation are able to shoulder these costs? The plaintiffs in Harris, Friedrichs, and Janus have all been represented by wealthy legal foundations, providing pro bono representation in each of these cases. . . .

[rurallib]

3. this really needs to go viral!

[sharedvalues]

4. This is the biggest threat to our democracy

Billionaire-funded manipulation of the courts, legislatures, think tanks, and media.

Cit U was one arm of that manipulation. Anti-union efforts are another. Funding for Breitbart, Cato, Reason is another. Gorsuch and all the nasty conservative judges the president is appointing now are another.

Our challenge is to get the media to cover the conservative billlionaire donors BEHIND these efforts.