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.
Right to work. Google it.
What was at issue, in this case, was this particular union (SEIU), taking union "dues" from people who were home caring for their own disabled family members. These people were not only not union members, they weren't even "health care professionals" by any stretch of the imagination.
It was a naked money grab, nothing more. SCOTUS got it right...
the infowarrior
union shop?
These were home healthcare workers who were basically their own boss, independent contractors.
The mere fact that some States allow closed union shops is a disgrace to private property and businesses. It says that if enough employees vote to form a union the business must do their labor business with that union, which violates the business rights to hire whomever they want.
“all the works in a union shop benefit from what the union negotiates”
That is a false assumption, that there was benefit. One could argue their pay was capped and no free market existed to fairly compete because of the union’s interference.
And the unions never had a place, they didn't help raise wages, they only contribute to unemployment, which is what their purpose always was, to control who can be hired.
There is no union shop involved in this matter. These individuals are taking care of family members in their own homes. The care givers have gotten zero benefits from union negotiations anyplace. And the unions were going after a piece of their wages. At least you’re correct that unions have outlived their true beneficial purpose. Now they’re just fundraising arms of the dimokrat party.
HUH? The State said that RELATIVES of disabled people, who took care of those with disabilities in the home, had do join a UNION! Did you miss that point?