Jump to content

Suit: Union Dodged Constitution to Keep Deducting


WestVirginiaRebel

Recommended Posts

WestVirginiaRebel
suit-union-dodged-constitution-to-keep-deductingFree Beacon:

An Oregon union continued to pocket dues from many home health aides caring for family members years after the Supreme Court declared a similar system in Illinois unconstitutional, according to a new suit.

 

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is challenging labor giant Service Employee International Union Local 503 for receiving dues payments from the Medicaid and disability checks received by home healthcare workers caring for the disabled. The suit, filed on behalf of aide Maryann Rose, alleges that the union acknowledged an aide’s withdrawal from the union, but continued to collect dues and fees from her paycheck.

 

“SEIU 503 sent Plaintiff Rose a letter informing her that she was no longer a member of the union and that she was no longer eligible for any benefits of union membership, but that it was going to continue having dues deducted from her wages unless and until she submitted a demand for dues deduction to cease in a manner satisfactory to SEIU 503,” the suit says.

 

Local 503 did not return request for comment.

 

The case comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Harris v. Quinn decision in 2014. The justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that Illinois violated the U.S. Constitution when it automatically deducted dues payments from the Medicaid payments made to home healthcare workers.

 

Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that the state was wrong to classify those workers as state employees because their paychecks were not subject to collective bargaining and they did not enjoy the benefits of other state workers.

 

“PAs are much different from public employees,” the decision said. “Unlike full-fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment.”

________

 

Union shakedown continues apace.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1716037616
×
×
  • Create New...