U.S. Supreme Court takes on home-care unionization laws

Illinois is one of several states that have chosen to allow the “unionization” of people who provide care for children or disabled persons and receive assistance from state programs. But one woman has stood up against this forced unionization. Pamela Harris is a mother from Western Springs, Ill., who has been forced to fend off...

Illinois is one of several states that have chosen to allow the “unionization” of people who provide care for children or disabled persons and receive assistance from state programs.

But one woman has stood up against this forced unionization.

Pamela Harris is a mother from Western Springs, Ill., who has been forced to fend off unionization drives while caring for her disabled son, Josh. In November 2011, with the assistance of staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Harris and seven other Illinois home-care providers sued to have the state recognize her for who she is.

The wait must have been excruciating, but it may well be worth it. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take up her lawsuit, which means that she and parents across the country may be free from having to worry about unions inserting themselves where they are not wanted.

Harris receives state aid through Illinois’ “home-based support services” program so she can stay with Josh full time. She is not a state employee, but under a controversial series of executive orders and statutes, government unions can treat her as if she were. This would lead to an absurd situation where she would be represented by a union that is in a position to do her little good, but will be able to collect dues from her.

Overwhelmingly, these kinds of situations exist in states that do not have Right-to-Work laws, so government unions can count on receiving dues or agency fees from those benefiting from home-based support services. But the benefits to the caregivers are negligible: unions exist to bargain over wages and working conditions, but in this case there are no wages paid out, and working conditions are dictated by the needs of the people they are caring for. The whole arrangement is little more than a scheme to redirect social program money to unions. Harris’ case is pretty typical: her “state job” is basically to be Josh’s mom.

So far, Harris and her fellow parents have fended off unionization, but that has meant keeping in contact with other program beneficiaries. She should be allowed to focus on her son. Instead, she still has to wait for the lawyers to argue and the judges to decide. But in a few months, perhaps, she can go back to being a mom – which is plenty challenging enough.