ShareThis Page
Lawsuit claims ‘union money grab’ through Pennsylvania Gov. Wolf order |

Lawsuit claims ‘union money grab’ through Pennsylvania Gov. Wolf order

Fairness Center
A lawsuit filed in Commonwealth Court on behalf of David Smith, a quadriplegic from Phoenixville in Chester County, seeks to overturn an executive order by Gov. Tom Wolf that opponents say would make it easier for homecare workers to unionize.

HARRISBURG — Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf exceeded his authority with an unlawful executive order making it easier for homecare workers to unionize and enabling Wolf’s largest union campaign contributor potentially to tap $21 million in annual dues, a nonprofit group contends in a lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed by the Fairness Center, which according to its website provides free legal service for public-sector employees harmed by their unions, argues that Wolf’s order enables a “union money grab” for Service Employees International Union.

David Osborne, a Fairness Center lawyer, said the executive order “smacks of political payback” since SEIU was one of Wolf’s major campaign donators. In 2014, the union gave Wolf $988,000 in campaign money, according to an analysis by the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative policy group in Harrisburg. The CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation is chairman of the Fairness Center’s board of trustees.

Wolf’s spokesman Jeffrey Sheridan called the allegation “ludicrous,” saying the executive order is about helping the disabled and elderly, not union organizing.

The SEIU is trying to gain support of homecare workers, a Fairness Center lawyer said.

The group filed its suit Monday against the Wolf administration and Department of Human Services.

Sheridan called it a lawsuit by a “right-wing, anti-union organization.”

An SEIU Pennsylvania spokesman could not be reached.

“This is not about SEIU,” Sheridan said.

Wolf’s order, issued in February, “ensures that homecare workers have a voice in shaping the future of the industry and seniors have choices about where to receive care,” Sheridan said.

He said the order does not grant collective bargaining rights to workers, does not force them to join a union and does not make them state employees.

“It simply creates a process where workers can share their ideas to improve the industry.”

The Fairness Center contends the order would enable a public union such as SEIU to garner annual dues from 60,000 members.

Sheridan denied that, reiterating that the order “doesn’t force anyone to join a union.”

Pennsylvania law enables unions to call a vote if 30 percent of members agree to do so, Osborne said. He said Wolf’s order changes that to 10 percent. Labor law requires majority approval of members to join a union, Osborne said, and the executive order changes that to “votes cast.”

“It changes the law in no way,” Sheridan said.

The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction to halt the executive order and asks the court to overturn the order as unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Smith, a quadriplegic from Phoenixville in Chester County, and his state-funded homecare provider, Don Lambrecht.

Wolf’s order is similar to one issued by ex-Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell in 2010, which was rescinded after a Commonwealth Court challenge, according to the Fairness Center.

Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media’s state Capitol reporter. Reach him at 717-787-1405 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.