Supreme Court ruling could weaken renewed dues skim

Michigan lawmakers are expected to pass bills this week that would take money from people who care for their disabled loved ones and turn it over to the Service Employees International Union. But home health care providers will have ways to defend their constitutional rights, thanks to a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Even if Michigan enacts two dues skim bills currently in the state House, caregivers who do not wish to pay the union will have the right not to do so, Patrick Wright, vice president of legal affairs at Mackinac Center for Public Policy, told Michigan Capitol Confidential.

Senate Bill 790, introduced by Sen. Kevin Hertel, D-St. Clair Shores, and Senate Bill 791, introduced by Sen. Sylvia Santana, D-Detroit, would resurrect an SEIU scheme to take union dues from home health providers’ paychecks. The two bills passed the Senate in June and are expected to get a House vote this week.

This would not be the first time Michigan allowed the union to get money from home health care workers — most of whom are family members taking care of disabled children or parents. In 2005, the SEIU successfully lobbied the Granholm administration to classify home health care workers in Michigan as public sector employees, creating a windfall for the union.

Once the 40,000 home care workers were classified as public sector employees, the SEIU could organize health care providers. It has never been clear what benefit unionization provides for home care providers, as the union can’t do any bargaining over payment levels. The federal government sets rates, and Michigan legislators are free to add to the program.

Only 20% of those affected by the union voted on whether to join the SEIU. One mother, Tammy Martin, recently told Michigan Capitol Confidential about the effort to organize home health care providers. Martin noted that parents do not often have the time to sift through paperwork and fine print to understand what SEIU is up to.

The union took 2.75¢ of every dollar meant for home health care workers, amounting to $6 million per year from the workers. By the time the Mackinac Center discovered these quiet paycheck deductions, the union had collected $34 million from home health care providers.

The Mackinac Center dubbed the operation a “dues skim” and filed a complaint with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. In 2012, the Legislature and Gov. Rick Snyder amended the Public Employment Relations Act to curtail the forced union deductions.

The union sought a constitutional amendment the same year to reverse the act, but voters rejected it.

Even though the dues skim ended in 2012, funding for the program that pays individuals who care for the disabled at home has increased by 85% — without any bargaining by a union. The Legislature appropriated $292 million in the 2012-13 fiscal year, and payments had grown to $540 million by the 2023-24 budget, even as union membership plummeted.

Although the process of opting out is onerous and bureaucratic, home health care workers’ status as public sector workers means that they, unlike private sector workers, will have the option of not joining the SEIU. In the 2018 decision Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public sector workers could not be forced to pay union dues or agency fees as a condition of employment.

Before the 2018 ruling, public sector workers had to become members of any union that had a collective bargaining agreement governing their workplace. At the least, they had to pay the union an agency fee. Agency fees carry a slightly reduced rate from full union membership dues. They are calculated based only on a union’s collective bargaining work and not its political activity.

The bills offered by Hertel and Santana could undo some protections providers currently enjoy.

The legislation was pulled out of the Senate committee during the same early morning hours when lawmakers passed the 2025 budget. It could be taken up in the House this week. If it passes, the law will require home health care providers to attend a half-hour presentation by the SEIU, which can use that time to sell itself.

While some providers may prefer to sign a union membership card, others may do so because they do not understand their rights. Once a person becomes a member, it can be hard to get out, according to Wright. A union, for example, could create a rule by which a member could resign only during a limited time period known as an opt-out window.