The Democratic Party is the party of government because it embraces a proposition it has done much to refute — that government is a nimble, skillful social engineer — and because government employees are a significant component of the party's base and of its financial support through government employees unions.
Franklin Roosevelt, architect of the modern party, believed unionization would be inappropriate in the public sector. Today's party, however, aggressively uses government coercion to create supposed “government employees” from whom unions can extract money, some of it for the party.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the Illinois government's policy of herding home-care workers into unions violates the workers' First Amendment rights. It does.
Because organized labor's presence in the private sector has shriveled from about 35 percent of the workforce in the 1950s to 6.6 percent today, public-sector employees are labor's oxygen. In Democrat-controlled Illinois, the relationship between the party and organized labor is, to say no more, mutually congenial. So, the government declared that providers of home care — including family members — for the elderly and others are government employees because their compensation comes from Medicaid, and because they participate in a state government program and are subject to state regulation.
In 2003, Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich, of fragrant memory, so decreed that thousands of home-care givers were public employees and ordered recognition of whatever union thousands of caregivers would choose, which was the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). In 2009, the current Democrat governor, Pat Quinn, designated even more home caregivers as public employees, making them targets for “card check” unionization drives. In this process for Illinois government employees, when a majority signs the cards, a unionization election has occurred.
The state government gave SEIU and a rival union the names and addresses of all the freshly minted government employees. Pam Harris, who is suing to get Illinois' system declared unconstitutional, gets a modest stipend from Medicaid to support her care for her profoundly disabled son. She remembers a young SEIU employee coming to her door to say just sign the card “so my boss knows I spoke to you.” A majority of caregivers in one Illinois program chose the SEIU.
Illinois' scheme is a trifecta of constitutional violations:
• It violates the right of free association of those who are coerced into a fees-paying relationship with unions.
• Second, those coerced into unions are compelled to subsidize with their dues union speech with which they might strenuously disagree.
• Third, after being transformed by government fiat into government employees, they are denied the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances in their own voices, having been forced to allow a union to petition for them.
Illinois' system resembles that in some other states. Until Republicans repealed Michigan's arrangements, the SEIU extracted more than $34 million from tens of thousands of caregivers. Patently, the purpose of such systems is to enable unions to siphon away, in dues, a portion of caregivers' pay, some of which becomes campaign contributions for the political party that created the system. The court is unlikely to think the First Amendment should be diluted to accommodate this.
George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.