Skip to comments.Meet the homemaker who could end Illinois' push to unionize home health care
Posted on 01/07/2014 1:06:35 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Pamela Harris is an Illinois homemaker who takes care of her developmentally disabled son, Joshua. She gets financial help from a state program funded through Medicaid.
Technically, the subsidy goes to Joshua, who "employs" his mother as a home health care worker. Because of this arrangement, Illinois has decided that not only is she a state employee, but that it has compelling interest that she join a union.
Harris still doesnt know why. It is not like she ever plans to go on strike against her son.
"I kept asking, 'Whats the benefit to me?' I could never get an answer," she told me Monday.
On Jan. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments by lawyers for her and seven other women, all but one of whom look after family members, into whether Illinois' push to unionize them is constitutional.
Theres a good chance that the justices will go further and upend existing precedents on public sector unions. The whole practice of requiring government employees to support a union could be ended.
Justice Samuel Alitos majority opinion in last years case, Knox v. SEIU, hinted at it. He said that compulsory union fees "constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a significant impingement on First Amendment rights."
Illinoiss policy, critics contend, does just that. The providers may be paid by the state, but they work at home, usually their own home. Their employment is based on arrangements with the patients who can fire them if they want.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
I would point out that unionizing public employees also seems to constitute explicit government support and preferential treatment of a private enterprise (the union), but with Obamacare and the Bank bailouts, that ship seems to have sailed long ago.
It’s all about union dues for SEIU. And then increased donations from SEIU to State Dim campaign funds.
Michigan tried this, what, two years ago?
First how could this homemaker be a state employee? Did she ever apply the state for employment, was she ever interviewed, does the state collect for a pension?
Second how could it be in the states interest that she be unionized? I have never known any employer that ever expressed to me that he thought it would be a good idea if his employees were to unionize if they were not already nor met one that thought it was good if they already were unionized.
Now there are certainly politicians that find advantages to unionized workers nearly all of them Democrats.
I dare say some of the union dues (SEIU and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers, are fighting over the contract) will find their way back into Democrat campaign coffers.
Tellingly, both declarations stated that they were not public employees for the purposes of state pensions, health benefits or protection from civil liability. Just unionization.
So the union gets the homemakers money but doesnt get any benefits in return.
Who could turn down a deal like that?
The homemaker doesnt have a supervisor to harass her or fire her so what is the union going to protect her from?
State law dictates what she will be paid so how is the union going to bargain for hire wages?
Sounds like a pretty one sided arrangement to me.
No doubt a foot in the door to get SEIU in on the “business” of large numbers of “boomers” who will be living with family. Follow the money — I expect there will be union demands that these households get subsidies as they are taking pressure off state services, etc, etc, etc. It’s ALL about making us dependent on BIG government programs, and tax payer money from more and more programs being funneled through Democrat grasping fingers and routed to progressives. They have to grow the business of BIG government and need a reliable dependent class to vote D.
According to law, the young man in this article will be allowed to vote when he is 18.
How many developmentally disabled are voting? They can be helped in the voting booth.
What SEIU loves most is stealing money from conservatives who have zero interest in being in one of their putrid unions...And this woman is such a person
SEIU is like the Obama regime...Tax and steal from us >>>>>>>>> The Obama/Democrat objective is>>>>
DEFUND conservatives and Republicans and normal Americans
FUND leftists, homos, lefty NGOs, useless Federal gov’t workers and every affirmative action baby under the sun
And in a suck-arse zero sum economy, when Obama funds his allies he does it by defunding you and other normal middle of the road Americans and conservatives
Perhaps Illinois could borrow Wisconsin’s Gov. Walker so he can “eliminate” the SEIU union. Busting the union worked here in Wisconsin.
When you take government money, there are always strings attached.
I think Michigan unionized babysitters nearly 10 years ago.
Absolutely no way she is a state employee, and that seems to be a point to make in the lawsuit.
She cares for her son who is getting disability from the state. If she is analogous to ANYTHING it might be like a contract worker.
The whole thing is a crock.
So now you can be compelled by law to buy a product (by the Feds) and TOLD by the Feds to re-sell a product to a compelled consumer that their regulations had forced you to stop selling AND -
A government entity can classify you as its employee no matter the truth, followed by compelling you to pay dues to a Union...
Welcome to an alternate universe, NOT America.
I don't know what Michigan was 10 years ago but for the past couple of years or so, it's been a right to work state, so now they could be in a union or not, as they please.
That is the ultimate goal is it not?
That the state is all and all is the state. Even if they do not admit it even to themselves their actions speak louder than their words.
When they had the opportunity in a lame duck congress they pushed through Obamacare in the dead of night on Christmas taking total government control of one sixth of the economy.
The Democrats ultimate goal is total control of every aspect of human life.
So yes, you are correct, they believe that every citizen should be a government employee. Long Live the Revolution comrade.