Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: House to succeed Mathis at county Dem chairman association
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* From a Tuesday Illinois Policy Institute press release…
Six Illinois child care providers and home caregivers represented by attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to remove the SEIU as their union representative.
Illinois law forces thousands of child care providers and home-based caregivers to be represented by the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, as a condition of providing care to people who receive subsidies from the government. Even though these caregivers no longer are forced to pay money to the SEIU, thanks to the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. Quinn, they still are forced to be represented by the union even if they do not want the union to speak for them.
The lawsuit filed today in the federal district court in Chicago seeks to end this practice. The plaintiffs are seeking to strike down the state law that deems the SEIU their “exclusive representative.”
“The government has no right to appoint an ‘exclusive representative’ to speak on citizens’ behalf just because they benefit from a government program,” said Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, a public-interest law firm, who is co-counsel in the lawsuit. “Under the First Amendment, individuals get to decide for themselves what they will say to the government and who will speak on their behalf. This lawsuit asks the federal courts to strike down this unconstitutional scheme.”
Victory in the case would build upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Quinn, in which the Court ruled that forcing home-based caregivers who are not government employees to pay union fees violated their First Amendment rights.
“Home-based caregivers should not be forced to associate with a union they have no interest in joining or supporting,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “We hope this case will build on the Supreme Court’s landmark, Foundation-won Harris decision to protect caregivers’ freedom of association and put a stop to union bosses’ forced home care unionization schemes.”
BACKGROUND:
In 2003, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued an executive order that said a group of Illinois residents who provide home-based care for people with disabilities through a state Medicaid program would be considered state workers for the sole purpose of unionization. Following the executive order, a state law was passed that granted the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, exclusive representation of these home caregivers. Blagojevich signed a similar executive order in 2005 for child care providers who served children from low-income families. That executive order also was followed by a state law designating the SEIU the exclusive representative of these child care providers. These executive orders and the subsequent laws allowed government unions to force child care providers and home caregivers to pay union dues as a condition of their clients’ or family members’ receiving help from the state.
Between 2009 and 2013, the SEIU collected more than $30 million in compulsory union dues and fees from home caregivers, and an additional $44 million-plus from child care providers who were force-unionized.
But in a landmark decision in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that it was illegal to force people to pay money to a union as a condition of helping people who participate in state entitlement programs. The Court held that these caregivers were not state employees, and therefore could not be forced into a union or forced to pay union dues or fees.
Lawsuit available online here: http://illin.is/1iRd7AG
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 12:24 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: House to succeed Mathis at county Dem chairman association
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What’s the point of this lawsuit? What changes either way?
Comment by Robert the 1st Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 12:31 pm
It’s a frivolous suit intended to drain money. That’s all.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 12:40 pm
=== The State of Illinois is forcing Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals to accept Service Employees International Union, Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas (“SEIU-HCII”) as their “exclusive representative” for lobbying the State over its operation of these public programs. ===
Another stupid and misdirected lawsuit by the money men.
They won the right not to pay. Now they don’t like the label of being represented by SEIU. Also, representation was granted by the State, why is the State not a party.
The crusade against unions continues.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 12:42 pm
Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 12:40 pm. Good point. Please pick a name and join the party.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 12:44 pm
The Rauner administration was dismayed (and surprised) when they learned that the AG’s office represents them in litigation . But then superstars find away around such things.
The in-house litigation department of the IPI is already 0-1 this year ((having their frivolous suit filed against DCEO for EDGE being dismissed as a matter of law)
Comment by Henry Francis Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 12:52 pm
Good thing the IPI is a non-partisan organization………
Comment by The Equalizer Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 12:56 pm
i am knwith this. let them be out of the union. the state can decide what pay and benefits it wants to give them independent of what those in the union receive. the court should order they are removed and they are returned to the pay they had without interference from the union over their wages.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:06 pm
I am impressed by how well the far right finds people who are willing to stand up and chop off their own legs at the knees. Between this suit and the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, I can’t believe how many people are willing to stand up and beg for their rights to be taken away and their wages to be lowered. I guess these are the same poor folks who regularly vote for the tea-party candidates. The incredibly low intellect of some people astounds me.
Comment by Travel Guy Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:06 pm
It’s extremely misleading to state that the State granted SEIU the right to represent these workers. The law (and executive order) granted these workers the right to be represented by a union chosen by a majority of the workers. The election was held, and SEIU happened to win.
The complaint even says that’s what happened. There is no law that says “State of Illinois designates SEIU” as the workers’ representative.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:10 pm
It makes sense, in a professional or personal environment you should only be represented by people you actually want to represent you.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:20 pm
So, Ahoy, does that mean I can sue so that Darin LaHood won’t be my congressman anymore?
Comment by South of Sherman Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:25 pm
SoS is right on the money. Workers who call a majority vote for union representation unfair should remember that it is a pure form of democracy.
I can’t opt out of paying taxes toward Rauner’s programs because I didn’t vote for him. You cast your vote and take what you get.
Comment by Man with a plan Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:33 pm
@1:10 =…granted these workers the right to be represented by a union chosen by a majority of the workers.=
The workers also had the right to vote “no representation”. The “no representation” vote lost. The vote for the union won.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:38 pm
Someone needs to brush up on their history and federal labor laws. Here Let me help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947
If there is a Union, they have to represent every employee.
Let’s get some things correct.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:38 pm
If you don’t know, now you know…
“The Liberty Justice Center is a public interest litigation center started by the Illinois Policy Institute.
It fights to protect economic liberty, private property rights, free speech, and other fundamental rights in Illinois and beyond. First and foremost, the Liberty Justice Center seeks to ensure that the rights to earn a living and to start a business, which are essential to a free and prosperous society, are available not just to a politically privileged few, but to all.”
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/faqs/what-is-the-liberty-justice-center/
Comment by Kasparov Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:50 pm
I know of 2 ways to get out from under union representation - 1. quit your job and find one that doesn’t have union representation or 2. Hold an election to de-certify the union as the collective bargaining unit.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 1:52 pm
The National Right to Work Foundation…,are they working to give every citizen of the United States of America a Constitutional Right to Work?
Because right now no one has the Right to Work.
In fact only 40 years ago were 18 year olds given the Right to Vote.
What “Right” is the Right to Work Foundation working for?
Comment by Jack Stephens Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:11 pm
== Between this suit and the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association…==
But have you heard her side? From an article awhile back…
I’m a veteran California public school teacher and an agency fee payer. I pay full union dues ($950.00 a year in my district), and I receive an annual rebate for the non-representational “contributions,” which are monies that go to the union’s political agenda, which have nothing to do with my job, collective bargaining, or contract issues. The rebate is $320.00 for the 2012-2013 school year (before Right to Work lawsuits, they used to reimburse me only $35.00 a year). Therefore, I will pay $630.00 in dues this year, which means that I am paying a hefty price for union representation on contract and work related issues, and union employees are being paid through my dues. As a punishment for being an agency fee payer, I lose my union membership, I have no voting power, I’m treated with disdain, and I lose my liability insurance! I use my rebate to purchase liability insurance from an outside source. Sure, it’s illegal for the union to force me to pay for their political agenda, but they sure get away with treating teachers so badly for opting out that a large percentage remain in the union in order to keep peace and avoid harassment in the workplace. Seems to me the union is the freeloader – taking my money for 25 years without protecting me from litigation and denying me the right to membership or a vote.
Seems like a legitimate beef. Pretty surprising how much union rights they withhold, considering she pays 2/3 of the dues. She can’t vote for leadership who directly hire the lawyers that negotiate her contracts? You have to make a political donation in order to have the right to vote?
Comment by nixit71 Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:14 pm
I dare anyone who has posted here to point out exactly where in the Constitution of the United States of America that gives you the Right to Work.
There.
Is.
None.
Comment by Jack Stephens Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:14 pm
After reading the SCOTUS decision in Harris v. Quinn, it is difficult to see why the SEIU would want to represent these non-dues-paying workers as part of their union. There is really nothing there to represent.
Comment by OldIllini Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:14 pm
Huh? “1. quit your job and find one that doesn’t have union representation”
We aren’t talking about factory jobs here. There are a lot of people taking care of family members with developmental disabilities that need some help. They aren’t going to quit on their sister or children, that is absurd.
My mother took care of my aunt in our home who had a functional assessment of about an 8 year old. Another sister was at Lincoln Developmental Center. Some of these families are not looking to squeeze every penny they can get from the state. They are more than happy to take care of a family but could use a little help in doing so.
I have no problem with the expansion of unions in this country to represent more workers, but unions aren’t always a good fit for every situation and this seems like one of them to me based on my experience with such a family situation. $30 million is big chunk of change that could go a long ways to helping the people that need these services. Not everything has to be a union or bust proposition.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:24 pm
==I know of 2 ways to get out from under union representation - 1. quit your job and find one that doesn’t have union representation or 2. Hold an election to de-certify the union as the collective bargaining unit.==
1. In some cases that would mean finding a new profession as AFL-CIO had a heavy hand in writing the law that says they must represent everyone. This wasn’t for union rights in as much as it was the monopolization of representation.
2. The question is how much more difficult it is to de-certification than to certify. And for the individual? Good luck. The NLRB just ruled the Union announced implementation of a policy resolving that any member desiring to opt out of membership or dues deduction must do so in person, at the union
hall, showing picture identification and supplying a written request indicating the members’ intent.
If only the union was asked to jump through as many hoops to collect their dues.
Comment by nixit71 Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:26 pm
= I dare anyone who has posted here to point out exactly where in the Constitution of the United States of America that gives you the Right to Work.=
Apparently not a Constitutional scholar. Your rights do not need to be specifically called out in the Constitution for you to have them you … (Words that would get me banned.)
Comment by Anon2U Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:27 pm
Jack Stephens, I don’t think anyone has ever made the argument that “right to work” is a constitutional issue.
When they say right to work they mean the idea that you don’t have to pay a union in order to keep your job. Something like “right to work without financing a 3rd party”
Comment by Hawkeyes Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:38 pm
==Seems like a legitimate beef. Pretty surprising how much union rights they withhold, considering she pays 2/3 of the dues. She can’t vote for leadership who directly hire the lawyers that negotiate her contracts? You have to make a political donation in order to have the right to vote? ==
Actually, she is opting out of the dues. The 2/3 pays for federally mandated union representation with respect to bargaining and enforcing the contract. Basically, she wants to pick and choose which parts of membership she gets, but that is not the way it works.
If you want to elect the leadership, have the liability insurance, etc, join the union. If you don’t like the political stances, work within the organization to change it.
As someone who has worked within my union on political issues, they look at two things: 1) the right to organize and bargain and 2) laws and funding that directly impact the workers; that’s it. And, that’s how all of the unions work from a political standpoint (the only exception I can think of would be IUOE 150 and gun rights, but even then they were representing most of their members).
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:45 pm
Be part they are missing is that both homecare and childcare providers voted on whether or not the wanted a union
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:46 pm
Pot calling Kettle, check out Friedrich’s background. She actually did join the union and worked within the union to make changes. Worked up to some union leadership position too, if I recall. After all that got nowhere she left the union. The story went something like that.
Comment by Hawkeyes Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 2:49 pm
==After all that got nowhere she left the union.==
Sounds like sour grapes to me. You can’t always get everything you want. If she was in leadership, she should know that. I’ve certainly had my issues with the union; most people do.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 3:45 pm
Then these people can just be unemployed at will.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 3:48 pm
My points have been made. There is nothing to stop somebody from changing a career. There are many non union jobs in many places.
Challenging the union by holding a vote to de-certify the union is a difficult course but doable for a committed cadre.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 3:57 pm
Looks like Rauner is going to find a new place to save money when these non-unionized people get their Right to Work(for less) recognized.
Comment by Glenn Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 3:58 pm
I don’t know the whole story, Pot calling Kettle. Seemed like an interesting one though. Sour grapes or whatever it is, she’s in the Supreme Court now.
Comment by Hawkeyes Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 4:26 pm
If you’re just making word salads for your front organizations, you can do better than Liberty Justic Center.
How’s about “Liberty and Justice for All Amen Center.”
Or “Truth Justice
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 5:49 pm
Lol Word. “Justice League” and “Hall of Justice” were already taken. So was “Libertyville.”
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 5:52 pm
While represented by the SEIU, didn’t the union bargain for their conditions of employment just as the SEIU did for full-paying members? I know the governor, in his characteristically disingenuous style, doesn’t mention that when he’s railing against fair-share deductions, but I believe it’s true…
Comment by Independent retiree/lawyer/jounralist Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 6:04 pm
“Truth Justice and Ameican Way Center”
“David Justice Center”
“Liberty Valance Center” (that one has some legs, considering)
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 6:04 pm
Try –
its not an appropriate unit.
There usually under federal law has to be a unit of two or more. These are more like independent contractors. and so there is no central place of employment or even a place where a number of “employees” congregate.
So there really is no bargaining unit to speak of. They have a point.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 6:43 pm
Todd, they have standard rates of pay. Those can be negotiated and therefore collective bargaining serves a purpose.
Comment by Me too Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 8:21 pm
Rauner lets up on his proposed CCAP eligibility changes and DON score changes, and this follows. Hmm.
Comment by Grousou Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 9:51 pm
**So there really is no bargaining unit to speak of. They have a point.**
Todd, we know that you hate public sector unions, but you’re just flat out wrong here.
They are an appropriate unit - they collectively bargain with THE STATE on issues that the state controls, such as wages, benefits, some working conditions, some conditions of employment, etc.
In the case of independent contractors, there is not a central entity (i.e. management) that controls such compensation and working conditions. And there is no requirement under labor law that there must be a central place of employment. Unless, of course, you think that truck drivers shouldn’t be able to organize. Hell, a lot of the trades don’t have a central place of employment.
In fact, your definition of bargaining unit is simply at odds with the IL Labor Relations Act:
It is abundantly clear that child care workers that receive CCAP payments, and DHS DORS Personal Assistants, are
“a class of jobs or positions that are held by employees whose collective interests may suitably be represented by a labor organization for collective bargaining.”
So no, despite your dislike for SEIU and public sector unions, they do not have a point.
Comment by AlabamaShake Wednesday, Nov 11, 15 @ 10:06 pm
I have no problem with unions - my stepfather worked for the International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers, Local 965 for four decades. His only beef with the union was the internal politics. (Keep in mind that for half of his career, the local union boss was Republican. And even he said before he passed away in 2010 that the unions are too quick to jump on the political bias bandwagon.)
My beef is against forced unionization. You should be able to get a job without being pressured to join a union - and you shouldn’t be fired, suspended, penalized, criticized or scrutinized for not being a union worker. Why should the government have the right to intervene when it should be the people of the Illinois making that decision instead?
Comment by Jake Leonard Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 9:30 am
Bama,
I don’t hate public sector unions.
But just because a group. Of people get the same pay rate doesn’t make them an appropriate unit. They really don’t fit the classic definition of employees
Comment by Todd Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 4:12 pm