3 ms·

> because joining some professions in certain states required you to pay agency fees whether or not you chose to be a member of the union at all. You can't wor

> because joining some professions in certain states required you to pay agency fees whether or not you chose to be a member of the union at all. You can't work at a private school or as a tutor or private instructor in Michigan without being part of the teacher's union? I dispute your characterization of the "profession" compelling union membership, at least in the case of teachers. The Detroit Board of Education is a "shop", not a profession. Police officer would perhaps be a better illustration of your point, as one can't really be a "private police officer" but shrug the state has a total monopoly on that law-enforcement profession, so you've got more than unions to contend with there. (Why can't I start my own police department?)

bmelton 8y ago
You point out that I made a misrepresentation, which I did do by exclusion of a better example and citation. In Harris v Quinn, the plaintiff quit work to care for a sick relative. Finding out that Illinois had a program to assist home health care workers to help defray the costs. She enrolled in the program and was awarded a grant to help her take care of her relative. According to the Service Employees International Union, this made her an employee of the state of Illinois. Because the state of Illinois was a "union shop", it meant that all people of this sort were de facto "home health care employees of the state", and all home health care workers who received grants of this sort were compelled to pay union dues, whether they were employed by the state, the individual to whom they were providing health care, or whomever else. In this regard, anyone who the union deemed to be in the home health care profession, and who availed themselves of state assistance, were members of the union, and obligated to paying dues. [1] - http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court-decision-on-public-union-dues/1143/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court...

bmelton 8y ago

You point out that I made a misrepresentation, which I did do by exclusion of a better example and citation. In Harris v Quinn, the plaintiff quit work to care for a sick relative. Finding out that Illinois had a program to assist home health care workers to help defray the costs. She enrolled in the program and was awarded a grant to help her take care of her relative. According to the Service Employees International Union, this made her an employee of the state of Illinois. Because the state of Illinois was a "union shop", it meant that all people of this sort were de facto "home health care employees of the state", and all home health care workers who received grants of this sort were compelled to pay union dues, whether they were employed by the state, the individual to whom they were providing health care, or whomever else. In this regard, anyone who the union deemed to be in the home health care profession, and who availed themselves of state assistance, were members of the union, and obligated to paying dues. [1] - http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court-decision-on-public-union-dues/1143/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court...