In January, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation challenging the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) homecare provider forced-unionism scheme in Illinois.
Now, a California woman, who for years has had a SEIU union monthly fee taken from her for taking care of her special needs daughter, has begun receiving visits from SEIU organizers suggesting that she should join the union. Is this an indication that SEIU United Long Term Care Workers (ULTCW) officials and their lawyers are concerned that Foundation’s argument in the Harris v Quinn case could bring this house of cards down? Possibly, because a court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the Harris v Quinn case could end public sector compulsory fees and turn off the cash spigot to SEIU and other government unions.
Because California is a forced-unionism state, it appears that SEIU was fine with forcing people to pay close to full union dues and not join the union. For example, SEIU ULTCW union which claims to represent over 180,000 care providers had only 78,143 members in 2012; however, it had a larger number, 94,593 non-members, who were forced to pays fees to SEIU union bosses just to stay in the California program for people with special needs.
So, the question is: Why are SEIU organizers in a new push to get people who are already virtually paying full dues to sign up as members?
In case you were wondering, here is the inflexible membership application that SEIU organizers want these caregivers to sign:
AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize the Office of the State Controller of California to deduct from my earnings and to pay over to the United Long-Term Care Workers’ Union, SEIU ULTCW those Union dues and fees that may now or hereafter be established by the Union. This authorization is irrevocable, irrespective of my membership status, for a period of one year from the date of execution, or until the termination date of the applicable collective bargaining agreement whichever occurs sooner This authorization shall be automatically renewed for successive periods of one year or for the period of each succeeding applicable collective bargaining agreement, whichever period shall be shorter unless I revoke it by providing written notice signed by me and sent through registered mail to the Employer and to the Union either during the ten day period prior to the end of any such applicable yearly period or during the ten day period prior to the termination date of any applicable collective bargaining agreement, whichever occurs sooner In absence of such notice of revocation, this authorization shall be irrevocably renewed for additional periods or until the end of the collective bargaining agreement whichever occurs sooner and for successive periods thereafter in accordance with this authorization.
A recent poll conducted by SurveyUSA, a national pollster rated “A” by polling aggregation site FiveThirtyEight, reveals Michiganders of all backgrounds strongly oppose overturning the state’s Right to Work law.
Biden Policies Hurt Hardworking Americans Across USA, One America News and Mark Mix
No union, but especially not one with multiple top officials convicted in federal court of accepting bribes and embezzling workers’ dues money, should be allowed to impose unionization on workers by colluding with company officials to bypass a secret ballot vote. That’s why it is critical that any state incentive package includes a condition that the decision over whether to unionize the proposed Ford-SK Innovation Western Tennessee plant be made with workers having the full protection of a federally supervised secret ballot vote, and absent any backroom deal between company and UAW officials.