I am surprised by this ruling as I think the unions had a valid point, all the works in a union shop benefit from what the union negotiates, unless non-union people are settling for less. Not that I am that big a fan of unions, but over time, mostly long ago, they had their place.
Unions don’t have any place now. They are nothing more than extortion rackets. They don’t really care about the workers. All they want are dues to line their pockets and those of Democrat politicians.
But, this was different. These “unions” were based on sham votes and Executive Orders of the governor.
In addition, these “unions” don’t negotiate SHIT for these FORCED members! Most of these in-home, hospice providers are given Federal government mandated fees, so the union does NOT have the authority to negotiate with the governor of a state for Federal hospice fees.
This was a SHAM to increase union dues and membership - PERIOD! It was Democrats helping the unions screw people over so that the Democrats could get some more money!
Compelling someone to pay union dues against their will is theft, and is not consistent with a free society.
What you’re missing is in this case is that home health care workers aren’t employees of the government.
I am surprised by this ruling as I think the unions had a valid point, all the works in a union shop benefit from what the union negotiates, unless non-union people are settling for less. Not that I am that big a fan of unions, but over time, mostly long ago, they had their place.
As I understand it, this was much like the scam in Michigan they were claiming that the relatives who were doing the home healthcare of the patients that were being taken care of at their own home were state employees and were therefore ‘unionizable’ even if the were unwilling to do so.
The ruling specifically addresses the issue you mention.Here is the ruling
You do understand that the SEIU was forcing people who were acting as personal assistants providing home care to their relatives to pay union dues. These people are essentially private contractors paid by the state of Illinois. What is fair about that?
it is the same with the teachers' union in California... a teacher in California does not have to belong to the union, does not have to pay dues... but benefits from the negotiations... what the teacher will not get is representation from the union if he gets into any kind of legal dispute with the administration... i come from a family of teachers in California...
If I remember consumer law correctly, if a business does work for you without your consent to do it, then you are under no legal obligation to pay them for that work.
I think this applies to the union situation as well.
If your mechanic fixed your A/C when you only went in for an oil change and expected you to pay for it, forget it. That comes out of HIS pocket. If a union decides to represent you without your consent, they don’t get to charge you anyway. They can eat the cost, even if you benefit because you didn’t contract for their services.
To a degree, I can see your point, however, the principle of “freedom of assembly” automatically includes the freedom to not assemble with people you disagree with. Also, in this case, we had an ill-disguised attempt by SEIU to take over the labor of everyone who has a small health care or child care business. In effect, they could claim every babysitter as a member of their union.
If public union contracts had to be ratified by the people who pay for them (taxpayers) probably very few would ever be put in place.
This wasn’t about a union shop, it was about a mom that receives a Medicaid check from the State for taking care of her disabled child. SEIU along with the Governor decided it was ok to take money out of her check for union dues.
The left is saying this is about big corporations; can you explain that logic to me? Some of them are saying that she gets the benefit of SEIU fights against management, but my question is, who in this case is the management?
The problem is that the Illinois law was just a sham to collect union dues from health care assistants. They were were excluded from group insurance for state employees, pensions for state employees, etc. The payments they received were not negotiated by the union but rather were a sub-section of Medicaid.
I think you may assume too much...that an employee’s interests are served by a union. Also, as a matter of basic fairness...why should anyone be required to pay for something they didn’t ask for and don’t want?
Allow me to present a counter point.
Just as the first amendment’s protection on freedom of religion incorporates freedom from religion (as in one can not be forced to support a religion if they do not wish) the first amendments freedom of assembly also incorporates freedom from assembly.
It is the freedom of assembly clause that protects the People from being forced to assemble (for the purpose of business) and prohibits the government from forcing people to purchase goods and services from a specific vendor. Likewise, and employee is assembling with a business for the purpose of wages. A union interferes with that right if it is a forced membership.
The unions that may have “had their place,” as you say (not that I agree with that fully) were not government employee unions. Govt. employees should NOT be allowed to unionize, and given federal (and state) labor laws, there should be no ultimate need for the unions.
Unions are strictly a fund raising mechanism for the Democratic party.
Public unions are illegal. They work for us the taxpayer. The SCOTUS got it right.
To hell with the unions. I am glad that this has happened.
I am surprised by this ruling as I think the unions had a valid point, all the works in a union shop benefit from what the union negotiates, unless non-union people are settling for less. Not that I am that big a fan of unions, but over time, mostly long ago, they had their place.
The problem is that your premise is wrong. Dead wrong.
This is not a “shop” situation, but the kind of SEIU sleaze they pulled in MI, WI and tried in MA a while back. This is a union raiding state aid to families with disabled and/or sick relatives for whom they provided care. There was no shop until the belly-crawling scumbags at SEIU sleazed through a law delcaring those receiving govt. assistance for disabled and/or sick relatives members of one — they even had the law in WI (ISTR) create an “agency” that their victims were “members” of. Most of the people thus screwed-over by the belly-crawling scumbags at SEIU didn’t even know it was happening.
This is nothing more than theft from the needy by the belly-crawling scumbags at SEIU.
I was in SEIU (briefly!) and I *KNOW* all they were interested in was raiding my wallet.
Absent Union meddling, what makes you think a motivated individual freely pursuing his own self interest would be paid less?
If I was in a position to do so, I would pay a worker who eschewed the union MORE than a union worker because non-union people would probably be better workers anyway in the sense that they wouldn’t be relying on the union to protect them over their poor work habits.