Homecare Providers 

Minnesota Childcare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme

News Release

Minnesota Childcare Providers File Federal Lawsuit Challenging Forced Unionization Scheme

Childcare providers fight dictate to push childcare business owners into union forced dues ranks

Minneapolis, MN (June 5, 2013) – A group of Minnesota home-based childcare providers have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new law that seeks to forcibly unionize the state's home-based childcare providers.

Jennifer Parrish from Rochester and 11 other providers from around the state filed the suit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Parrish and other providers seek to halt implementation of a recently-passed law intended to designate Service Employees International Union (SEIU) or American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) officials as the monopoly political representative of thousands of providers in the state, who are either business owners or family members who take care of children within their families.

Click here to read the full release.

SEIU Officials Face State Charge for Violating Home Care Provider's Rights

News Release

SEIU Officials Face State Charge for Violating Home Care Provider's Rights

Case shows desperate need for California Right to Work law

San Francisco, CA (January 31, 2013) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a San Francisco in-home care provider has filed a state charge against a local union for illegally refusing to honor her right to refrain from full-dues-paying union membership.

On Tuesday, Shiufan Lee filed the charge with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) against Service Employees International Union-Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).

Lee attempted to exercise her right to refrain from formal union membership via phone in early August 2012, and in a letter she sent on August 3. Lee received a call from a union official where she again asked to resign from membership and full dues payments. Each time she spoke with union officials, they refused to acknowledge her resignation.

Click here to read the full release.

Update: Supreme Court May Take Foundation Case Challenging SEIU Homecare Forced Unionism Scheme in Fall

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court took action in another case brought by Foundation staff attorneys. Instead of issuing an order granting or denying cert in the case, the High Court invited the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief in the case Harris v. Quinn. That request shows that the Justices are interested in the case.

The case stems from a legal challenge initiated by eight Illinois homecare providers with the help of National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys against executive orders issued by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and his disgraced (and now incarcerated) predecessor, Rod Blagojevich.

Quinn and Blagojevich issued executive orders aimed at forcing unwilling homecare providers into a union. Under the Governors' decrees, personal care providers are considered "public employees" for the purposes of union organizing, a move that has since forced thousands of unwilling care providers into the SEIU's forced dues-paying ranks.



The providers, including lead plaintiff Pam Harris (interviewed in the video above), are challenging the executive orders on the grounds that forcing them to affiliate with a union and subsidize union activities violates their rights to free expression and association.

The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether or not to hear the case this Fall, after the U.S. Solicitor General files a brief.

For more information on the case, check out the Foundation's Supreme Court petition. You can also read amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the Foundation's petition from the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

SCOTUSblog Highlights Foundation Supreme Court Petition on Behalf of Illinois Homecare Providers

SCOTUSblog recently highlighted the Foundation's Harris v. Quinn case as a petition to watch during the latest Supreme Court conference. Harris challenges a series of executive orders issued by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and his disgraced predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, aimed at forcing unwilling homecare providers into a union. According to the governors' orders, personal care providers are to be considered "public employees" for the purposes of union organizing, a move that has since forced thousands of unwilling care providers into the SEIU's forced dues-paying ranks. 

With the help of Foundation staff attorneys, eight Illinois homecare providers are challenging these executive orders on the grounds that forcing them to affiliate with a union and subsidize union activities violates their rights to free expression and association. 

Pam Harris, the lead plaintiff in the case and a personal care provider to her developmentally-disabled son, had this to say about the governors' forced unionism scheme last November:

"My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how to best care for my son. Union dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide for my son’s needs. And then I would be giving my money to a union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may vehemently disagree with."

For more information on the case, check out the Foundation's Supreme Court petition. You can also read amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the Foundation's petition from the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation.


Terms of Web Site Use      Related Links: National Right to Work Committee | National Institute for Labor Relations Research

Copyright © 2010 National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
 National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
8001 Braddock Road / Springfield, Virginia 22160
(703) 321-8510 | (800) 336-3600 / (703) 321-9613 fax - general (703) 321-9319 fax - legal department