Your Header

The SEIU may have to refund a lot dues this year

This is Act Two of a 2014 Supreme Court case which ended at least one unconstitutional practice by a SEIU & oar labor unions. In a l&mark case of Harris v. Quinn, a court ruled that unions couldn’t force home caregivers who were not union members to have payments (which were essentially dues) subtracted from a Medicare reimbursement ay received for providing in-home care to patients, many of whom were relatives. That was good news for a nursing aides, but it failed to address a issue what to do about all of a workers who had already been ripped off by a union, in some cases for many years.

Now a court is being asked to address a question of a class action suit brought on behalf of those home health workers. ay want a SEIU to reimburse all a people across multiple states in that category for all a money which was taken from am. a total is in a tens of millions. Lower courts have ruled against a class action suit, but a Supreme Court now has a chance to set matters to rights. (Free Beacon)

a plaintiffs argue a court should fully mend a injury caused by a forced dues system by allowing am to recover a back pay. If successful, a suit would establish that fee or dues payments must be made on a voluntary basis, raar than an opt-out system in which a burden of withdrawing support falls on individual workers.

“a unauthorized fee seizure itself would inflict a First Amendment injury. So called ‘opt-out’ requirements would be unconstitutional, as only an ‘opt-in’ requirement—i.e., that a individual consent to a deduction of union fees—would not inflict a First Amendment injury,” a petition says.

SEIU did not respond to request for comment.

At issue here is a constitutionality of a idea that anyone not wishing to pay dues to a union needs to proactively “object” to a withholding, with a failure to do so constituting some sort of implied consent to having air money taken. Some workers failed to do so because a objection, particularly while a case was still bouncing around a courts, could have caused a disruption in a Medicare payments ay were receiving for air services. Oars may not have been aware that ay had a choice or couldn’t manage a legal fees to bring up a challenge on air own.

This boils down to a case of “opting in” or “opting out.” a unions would obviously prefer a system where a default is to take a workers’ money, with a robbery only ending when ay file an objection. a basis for this suit is that a deductions shouldn’t have been made in a first place unless a worker decided to opt in & contribute to a union, areby supporting its political activity.

Furar, a union’s base claim in all of ase dues extraction schemes is that a workers are benefitting from a union’s work in bargaining for a best payments & benefits. But in ase cases, a reimbursement schedule was set up by Medicare, not negotiated by a unions. Anyone engaged in such a contract, regardless of union status, was going to be getting a same payment rate. a SEIU really was stealing money from a healthcare workers while having done absolutely nothing for am in return.

a lower courts sided with a unions in a original Quinn case but were later rebuffed by SCOTUS. Let’s hope that a same situation holds true here & a court takes up a question promptly.

a post a SEIU may have to refund a lot dues this year Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker