Imagine someone pretending to be you entering a shop, buying an expensive product, and then paying by check, signing with a signature that does not even look like yours.
In reality, this isn't possible because the salesperson would not accept a check without identification, and your bank would not cash an obvious fraud. Even in the event that it did, the store would be obligated to issue a refund when it realized it had erroneously taken your money.
No sane criminal would consider committing such an unprofessional fraud, let alone think he or she would succeed in getting away with it.
But in at least 12 cases that are moving through various levels of legal proceedings, public-sector unions on the west coast of America have not complied with the lawful demand of government employees to stop deducting dues based on membership agreements that everyone involved agrees are bogus.
Three of these cases were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in December alone.
In the first instance, a Spokane, Washington, homecare provider named Cindy Ochoa argues the state did not provide her procedural due-process protections before twice stealing her lawful earnings and transferring them to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 775, which represents Medicaid-reimbursed caregivers in Washington. Ochoa decided to leave SEIU 775 after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Harris v. Quinn struck down mandatory fees and dues for Medicaid-reimbursed caregivers and childcare providers.
Then SEIU began garnishing her wages again in 2017, after one of SEIU's arm-twisters had paid Ochoa a visit the year before, trying to convince her to rejoin the union. Again, she did not sign. The union representative was not fazed and forged her signature on a membership card. This prompted Washington State to start taking dues out of her paychecks and transferring them to SEIU 775.
Based on established First Amendment law, diverting a percentage of Ochoa’s wages to the union, which are by nature highly political, amounts to controlled speech, which could cause Ochoa irreparable damage.
The two other cases involving forgery (Zirinski v. SEIU 503 and Wright v. SEIU 503) were merged because they both involved Oregon public employees whose signatures were forged on membership papers on behalf of the state's largest public-sector union.
SEIU 503 agreed to terminate both members' memberships; however, it continued to deduct dues from their hard-earned wages. Incredibly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found no issue with this arrangement and would not stop SEIU 503's fraudulent practices, releasing the state of the blame with an unorthodox pretzel reasoning, claiming that it relied on the data from the union to decide from which paychecks to subtract dues, and concluding that SEIU 503 couldn’t be punished as it was not a “state actor.”
The decision, in essence, encourages unions to continue forging people's signatures and stealing their funds under fraudulent pretenses.
Be aware that SEIU 775 in Washington and SEIU 503 in Oregon have been discovered to have been involved in enough fraud that the Freedom Foundation has filed RICO lawsuits against both unions, and those lawsuits are being pushed through the 9th Circuit pipeline.
In the wake of both Harris and Janus, the unions representing government employees started looking for ways to stop millions of members across the country from leaving. If we observe similar unions with similar issues that are all committing the same depraved behavior, it isn't a coincidence. It's a deliberate, calculated pattern that shows how desperate they really are.
The issue is a systemic one that is begging for attention from the Supreme Court.