Those caring for an ailing loved one shouldn’t be forced to unionize so that they have to give up Medicaid dollars to greedy organizations like the SEIU.
T ammy Martin doesn’t need or want to be unionized. She’s not employed. She doesn’t earn a paycheck. She’s a 24/7 caregiver for her terribly sick son. But Michigan Democrats have colluded with the Service Employees International Union to make her a target for unionization — a move that big blue states like California, Massachusetts, and many others have also taken. My organization is now filing a lawsuit on her behalf to spare about 35,000 caregivers like Tammy from being forced to enrich a union at the expense of the vulnerable loved ones they typically care for.
There’s no world in which it makes sense to unionize Tammy Martin. Her son, Nathan, has mitochondrial disease. He can barely move and is hooked up to an IV at all times. Tammy has to be home all day to ensure he’s okay. Her daughter — Nathan’s sister — had the same disease. She died at age 20, and at age 24, Nathan needs Tammy’s constant vigilance to stay alive.
But Tammy has something the SEIU wants: a roughly $2,000 monthly state stipend, drawn from federal block grants for Medicaid. Congress created this program out of the recognition that people like Tammy can’t work but still need to provide for their loved ones. That roughly $24,000 a year doesn’t go far, but it helps put food on the table and keep the lights on. Tammy — and Nathan — need every penny. The same goes for the overwhelming majority of the thousands of other caregivers in Michigan.
Until last year, the SEIU had no chance of getting access to this cash. But Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the Democratic majorities in the state legislature enacted a law that makes caregivers eligible for unionization. It’s widely known as “dues skim,” because it will take union dues from these monthly stipends. Under the new law, caregivers are deemed “public employees,” which defies logic. The overwhelming majority are family members or close friends of the people they care for. They’re doing this as a labor of love, not as state employees with the traditional salary and benefits package that government work often entails.
On that note, and contrary to the point of organizing, the SEIU can’t bargain for better benefits or wages for Tammy or her fellow caregivers. It can only lobby the government outside of a bargaining agreement, but anyone can do that, either individually or through third-party organizations. Michigan’s new law says that caregivers must get extra training, which the union will likely provide, yet Tammy says she doesn’t need it. The SEIU doesn’t know the details about her son’s care, nor does it know the unique and personal situations facing the other 35,000 caregivers. Are they really going to give expert advice on shampooing, feeding, and bathing? No matter: The SIEU will still get a slice of that money, even as it provides nothing meaningful in return.
The only good news is that Tammy isn’t unionized — yet. But it’s almost certainly coming. Any day, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission will announce a unionization election for the state’s caregivers, determining whether the SEIU can represent them. The SEIU pushed for the state’s new law and appears to believe that its victory is guaranteed, likely with low turnout among a small number of motivated, union-aligned caregivers.
Tammy’s best hope to avoid unionization is a new lawsuit. On July 30, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation is helping her and several other caregivers sue Michigan to stop this madness.
Their argument is simple: Both the Michigan Constitution and the U.S. Constitution stand in the way of this union money grab. The state’s governing charter doesn’t give the Michigan Employment Relations Commission the authority to hold this election. Meanwhile, The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees freedom of association. That protects people like Tammy from forced unionization because — despite the fiction behind Michigan’s new law — she’s not a public employee. She’s a mother trying to keep her son alive, and she has the freedom to do that without being forced into a union. What’s true for her could even be true in the other states that target caregivers like Tammy, from California to Massachusetts and beyond.
This isn’t the first time that Michigan caregivers have been targeted by unions seeking to skim dues off their stipends. Democrats put in place the same unjust policy in 2005, and the Service Employees International Union went on to take an estimated $34 million from home caregivers in just six years, before Republicans repealed it. But this time, caregivers like Tammy hopefully won’t have to wait for a change in power. The courts can protect them. Then Tammy won’t have to worry about fighting a union or cutting back financially. She’ll be able to focus on the only thing that matters — caring for Nathan.