Lawmakers call for end to forced unionization

State Sen. Joe Markley (R-16) speaks at a recent press conference in Hartford about the forced unionization of family childcare providers and personal care attendants. –CONTRIBUTED

State Sen. Joe Markley (R-16) speaks at a recent press conference in Hartford about the forced unionization of family childcare providers and personal care attendants. –CONTRIBUTED


HARTFORD — State Sen. Joe Markley (R-16) and state Rep. Rob Sampson (R-80) have called for union and state officials to immediately halt the forced unionization of family childcare providers and personal care attendants, in recognition of the Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. Quinn.

In the Harris v. Quinn case, a 5-4 vote by the justices ruled that personal care attendants who were deemed to be state employees in Illinois cannot be forced to pay union dues or non-member agency fees if they do not wish to join a union, according to a press release issued by the legislators.

A contract between Service Employees International Union District 1199NE and the Personal Care Attendant Workforce Council was initiated by Executive Order 9 and 10 handed down several years ago in Connecticut by Gov. Dannel by Malloy, the release stated.

“This national ruling is a major win for constitutional rights and protections, and will have significant effects in Connecticut,” Markley said in the release. “Forcing people in the private sector to let a union represent them and bargain on their behalf is not fair to those who wish to remain independent or who disagree with the union’s political affiliations. It’s especially not fair when the Governor, not the people, pushes for this organization. The Supreme Court ruling confirms that Gov. Malloy instituted an unconstitutional money grab by creating a union.”

The Harris v. Quinn ruling reaffirms the First Amendment rights of the workers, the legislators added. Prior to this decision, a worker who disagreed with the union view on political questions would still be forced to subsidize it. They would also be denied the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances on their own, having been forced to allow a union to petition for them, the release stated.

“The Supreme Court ruling marks a significant change in the way people are allowed to represent and speak for themselves. I hope that this decision guides Connecticut in lifting unconstitutional requirements, and helping restore a system that supports those most in need,” Markley said in the release.

Be Sociable, Share!