By George Will
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Seattle — It is
protected by Washington state’s lopsidedly Democratic political class, which
knows who butters its bread. It has been provided with bespoke law, tailored
for its comfort. Nevertheless, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
has been so avaricious in its objectives and so thuggish in its methods that it
has been bested by the Freedom Foundation.
This small conservative outfit, which punches above its
weight and is led by Tom McCabe, relishes the SEIU’s accusation that it has
committed “tortious interference” with “business expectancy.” This melodious
legalese means that the Foundation is guilty of informing SEIU members and
fee-payers — many of them reluctant participants — of their right not to fill
the SEIU’s coffers, from which flow contributions to Democrats.
“Individual providers” (IPs) are home health-care workers
employed by those receiving the care — often the caregivers’ loved ones — who
use their Medicaid stipends to pay the caregivers. In 2003, the
Democratic-controlled Illinois state government imperiously declared thousands
of these workers to be government employees simply because their pay comes from
Medicaid, and gave the SEIU and a rival union the names and addresses of the
workers to facilitate herding them into a union. The SEIU prevailed, often with
duplicitousness, and began collecting a portion of the Medicaid payments as
dues.
In 2014, however, the Supreme Court held that IPs, not
being “full-fledged” government employees, have First Amendment rights of
freedom of association and speech to choose not to support financially a union
with whose activities they disagree. Washington’s state government makes IPs’
receipt of Medicaid subsidies contingent on association with the SEIU as their
bargaining representative. So, the Foundation began notifying IPs of their
right to opt out of SEIU fees — the state deducts the money and sends it to the
union — that totaled $20.2 million in 2016.
When the Foundation sought information that is supposed
to be public — lists of recipients of public funds — state agencies that are
supposed to provide such lists “promptly” instead provided outdated lists 819
days later. Then the SEIU concocted a ballot initiative to carve an exemption
from public-disclosure laws in order to keep IPs’ identities secret. The
Democratic attorney general, exercising his power to write tendentious titles
for ballot questions, labeled this a measure to “increase the penalties for
criminal identity theft and civil consumer fraud targeted at seniors or
vulnerable individuals.” Actually, it was designed to protect the SEIU from
seniors and vulnerable individuals understanding and exercising their rights.
It passed, thanks to more than $2 million of SEIU spending.
But former employees of SEIU and its “training”
organization gave the Foundation some lists of IPs. The Foundation’s outreach
to IPs and other SEIU-represented caregivers caused the union to hemorrhage up
to 400 opt-outs a day, and eventually a total of 10,000. SEIU lawyers,
evidently hoping to bankrupt the Foundation with litigation expenses, filed
three basically identical lawsuits — they deposed Foundation staff 15 times —
forcing the Foundation to spend $1.5 million defending itself. But the
“tortious interference” argument failed in court, and now the Foundation is
suing SEIU for abusing the judicial process, and is seeking reimbursement.
Out of court, the SEIU made the opt-out process opaque
and burdensome for IPs, many of whom are unsophisticated, and tried to frighten
them with false claims that their health care was endangered. The union called,
and sent mailings to, McCabe’s neighbors and members of his church, telling
them that he is “anti-worker” and — the Left’s McCarthyite accusation nowadays,
regardless of context — ”anti-LGBT.” McCabe’s neighbors are mostly not kindred
political spirits, but he has lived among them for 28 years and they remain
unconvinced that he is Lucifer, son of the morning, fallen from Heaven.
The Democratic party and government-employees’ unions
have a mutually lucrative relationship, so some blue states are shrouding in
secrecy the identities of all public employees, lest the employees be made
inconveniently aware of their rights. However, by next June, those rights might
be enhanced.
The U.S. Supreme Court probably will overturn a 1977
ruling that extracting compulsory union “agency fees” from public employees
does not violate their First Amendment rights if the fees do not finance
political activities. (A meaningless demarcation: All government-union
activities are inherently political; besides, money is fungible.) In Janus v. AFSCME, the court probably will
recognize for all public employees the rights that the court’s 2014 decision
protected for those who are less than “full-fledged” government workers. The
unions will call this tortious interference with their business expectancies.
Disinterested people will call it an affirmation of individuals’ constitutional
rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment