|
 Pam Harris, the Illinois mom who stood up to union thuggery and her
state government, said she never wanted to be the face of the fight
against forced unionization.
"The mission has never changed," Harris told Illinois Watchdog. "That's to do what's right for Josh. That has always been my goal,
to do what's right for Josh."
Harris' son, Josh, has a rare genetic condition, Rubinstein-Taybi
syndrome, and spends most of his days in a wheelchair. He lives at
home with Harris, who is his primary care giver.
Harris fought hard to stop Service Employees International Union
from squeezing some of her son's Social Security money out of her
family.
|
THE DECIDERS: The Supreme Court will hear arguments on forced
unionization in Illinois. |
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday on whether
the forced unionization of families like Harris' is legal.
Illinois made it legal through an executive order in 2009.
 With backing from SEIU and Illinois' other massive public employee
union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn OK'ed Executive Order 15.
The order classifies parents like Harris as "public employees," but
only for the sake of collective bargaining, and SEIU and AFSCME can
try and organize them.
Paul Kersey, director of labor policy for the Illinois Policy
Institute, said that order from the governor unleashed public
employee unions on moms like Harris.
"These aren't government employees. These are private citizens who
take care of disabled family members. No matter how you might feel
about unions, they went too far this time. Trying to unionize
families was a gross overreach," Kersey said.
[to top of second column] |
Harris said she realized the unions had gone too far the moment SEIU
first arrived at her door.
"I'm not going to be the face of a national anti-union movement. I'm
just a mom trying to do what's right for her son," Harris said.
The central question before the Supreme Court is whether fair share
laws, which require non-union members to pay union dues, trump
someone's First Amendment right to free speech (and right to not be
in a union.)
Kersey said if the high court sides with Harris, the implications
will be far reaching.
"It would mean that unionizing families is a violation of their
First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme
Court will be taking a closer look at how government unions operate
and the far-reaching problems that our labor laws create," Kersey
added.
Harris said a Supreme Court decision will simply mean she can be a
mom once again.
"Every night I pray to God that I live one day longer than Josh. He
is my first thought in the morning and my last thought before I fall
asleep at night," Harris said. "I want to once again be able to turn
all of my attention to Josh."
___
Contact Benjamin Yount at
Ben@IllinoisWatchdog.org and find him
on Twitter:
@BenYount.
[This
article courtesy of
Illinois Watchdog.]
|
