Skip to comments.Illinois mom elated after defeating powerful union in Supreme Court
Posted on 06/30/2014 2:54:34 PM PDT by jazusamo
An Illinois woman who took her fight against one of the nation's most powerful unions all the way to the Supreme Court and won, said all she ever wanted was to care for her ailing son.
Pam Harris, the lead plaintiff in the landmark Harris v. Quinn case, in which the high court ruled people who care for loved ones in their home can't be compelled to join the Service Employees International Union, said the ruling was a victory for her son Josh, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder.
"It means no third party intrusion, it means that there's not going to be a union contract inserted between my son and I, there's not going to be union rules and regulations dictating how I can provide the care that Josh needs," she said.
Harris is the primary caregiver for her 25-year-old son, who suffers from Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome. His illness has left him mentally and physically disabled and in need of round the clock care at his home in Winthrop Harbor, Ill.
We feed him, help him wash his face, shave him, brush his teeth, she said.
The family receives a Medicaid check each month for approximately $1,300 to care for Josh, but its "not nearly enough" to pay for all his medical bills and other needs. In order to receive that check, under state law, the Harris family must undergo eleven visits per year by state employees checking on Joshs welfare, be required to submit monthly summaries detailing care on a time sheet and provide specific information about Joshs care.
And, until Monday's ruling, join a union.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
She’s our Rosa Parks.
Kudos to her for standing up. My only regret is that the ruling appears not to extend to all public employees.
I no more than finish one SCOTUS ping before I start another one. This is crazy insane today. :)
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Her trials may be just starting. Unions can be very vindictive and those “inspections” will probably be done by card carrying members. All it takes is one nit-picker to make life miserable.
Wow. I’m totally in favor of the government not butting in and dictating medical care to families. It does seem to be another situation where the SC has finally said “enough already” with government over-reach.
Thanks, my friend. :-)
I wasn’t going to ping you to this because I suspected you’ve been busy.
SO glad to see this!
As someone who may need to leave her job to care for her aging/ailing Dad, this SLAP DOWN of government intrusion into how I manage MY RESPONSIBILITIES makes me VERY happy!
Now that’s sweet...
35 SCOTUS pings in one day on two decisions. It was a big day.
This was exactly what was happening in Michigan till we shut it down a couple of years ago. The only difference is that this one went to the supreme court. The union says its an attack on worker rights but it was their own forced members who sued them.
It was a naked money grab. These people are basically self employed and the union couldn’t represent them if they wanted to. The union was just in it for the cash.
This is the first time I’ve seen what she actually receives from Medicaid/Medicare for her sons care per month. $1,300 is not much for the constant care her son needs but the union wanted their cut.
Glad that a “red” union took one in the balls. Let’s keep hitting them in the courts and in the media.
One day the American people will learn who the SEIU really is, and where it came from (two Communist Party USA created/dominated unions, District 65 and Local 1199, etc).
Interesting. If I were living in Illinois and was taking care of my rehabilitating wife, as I am now, I would have had to join a union. Right! Great decision by the USSC!
From what I know of his condition, it’s a pittance. Welfare leeches get more than that.
She beats the SEIU union in Illinois yet! Congratulations to her.