How low can unions go in using their political clout to grab more money from unwilling individuals? Pretty low, such as inducing a friendly governor to sign an order declaring people who receive funds through a state program so they can give health care to sick or disabled family members in their homes to be “state employees.” Then, the union contrives to win an election with only mail-in ballots so it becomes the “representative” for all these people, and then siphons off 3 percent of the funds they counted on for their dues.
That was the scheme run by the SEIU in Minnesota and when individuals were startled to see that some of the money they were getting was being siphoned away into union dues, they started to fight back — and encountered a state bureaucracy that was not interested in helping.
For more details, see my latest article in Forbes.
The comments are full of troll-type stuff about how wonderful unions are for employees. Even if that were true (and it’s mostly false), it has nothing to do with the facts here. Leftists who dislike business cronyism should also oppose unions when they do the same thing.
The Supreme Court ruled against a very similar scheme in Harris v. Quinn (in another blue state, Illinois) but Big Labor never lets the law get in the way of achieving its goals.