Following up on forced dues for foster parents in Washington State, another op-ed in the Seattle P-I this week says that the California Legislature wants to "unionize Grandma." The article states:

A bill pending in the Senate would create a union to organize family
members who provide child care for their kin and are paid by the state
so that mothers can work outside the home.

Furthermore:

Child-care providers who did not want to join the union would still
have to pay fees -- likely in the same amount as the union dues.

Most disturbingly, this extension of compulsory unionism is part of a broader trend:

The move in California is part of a nationwide strategy by SEIU and the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Since
2005, governors in eight states have issued executive orders or taken
other action giving family child-care providers the right to unionize
and bargain as a group.

And in all of those states without a Right to Work law, those care providers must pay union dues. What a tell tale sign that this is all about the money that union officials must stoop to compelling payment of union dues from people taking care of their own families.

You heard it right. According to an op-ed just run by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Washington State is considering subjecting foster parents within the state to compulsory unionism, which could cause some serious problems. The piece cites:

If forced to join, I predict foster parents already fed up with the
system will depart in droves. If even 20 percent leave already thin
ranks, it will be a foster care disaster.

The author also brands the idea as a "beachhead," and that:

Once a precedent is set, it will be easy to expand the scope because virtually all children in foster care are special needs.

Sounds like union officials in Washington are once again using the legislature to expand their special privileges rather than soliciting voluntary support of those they seek to organize. Not to mention the fact that these are foster parents we're talking about here.

In Washington State, Susan Wiggs, a teacher with a religious objection to paying union dues, fought tooth-and-nail against the Vancouver Education Association (VEA) over her right to divert those dues to charity. VEA union officials refused time and again to accommodate the teacher’s wishes.

Citizenlink.com has the story:

“[Union officials] absolutely don't want a precedent of religious objectors being able to choose their own charity," Wiggs said.

After the seemingly never-ending battle, a labor board ruled last week in favor of the teacher, but the VEA won’t give up and still refuses to approve Wiggs’ choice.

For more information on your rights as a religious objector, read the Foundation’s pamphlet entitled, “An Employee's Guide--To Union Dues and Religious Do Nots.” The guide describes how to obtain as accommodation of an employee's religious beliefs against joining or financially supporting a labor union.

In an all too familiar scene, Nevada County employees in California are outraged at a recent union election they called "underhanded" and "sneaky," that now means they have to pay union dues or be fired.

"It left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. It was just kind of snuck in," said Mike Sherman, an employee in the welfare department who didn't hear of the election until after ballots were cast.

Similar groups of frustrated employees have formed grassroots groups opposed to forced union dues in Maine and Washington State in recent years. California, Maine, and Washington State all are without a Right to Work law which would make union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary.