Another day, another union that’s mired in scandal.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, a single mother is taking a union to court, accusing it of forging her signature in order to remove funds from her account.
But that money wasn’t just for her — it was for the supervision and care of her disabled daughter.
Earlier this month, California resident Maria Quezambra officially filed a federal lawsuit against United Domestic Workers Local 3930 — and the claims she’s making are stomach-churning.
The lawsuit claims that in addition to essentially stealing money from her account, the union also trespassed on her property, misled her regarding the proper requirements for paying dues and stepped on every attempt she made to retrieve her funds.
“Ms. Quezambra did not sign anything indicating she desired to become a union member or pay union dues, and the State began to deduct Union dues from her paycheck automatically,” the lawsuit reads, according to the Free Beacon.
“The Union forged Ms. Quezambra’s signature to justify past dues deductions and to lock her into paying full union dues each year.”
The suit comes nearly five years after the Supreme Court put an end to a controversial dues scheme that worked against individuals like Quezambra.
The Court ruled that home-care aides whose wages are paid by Medicare don’t have to join unions, and can thus avoid paying dues, according to The New York Times.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFCME, meanwhile, established that unions can’t force public employees to pay dues if they don’t want to join a union.
But according to Quezambra’s suit, the UDW never made her aware that she could abstain from paying dues.
Now, she’s taking the union to court.
“She does not believe that the Union adequately advocates for her interests, and she does not support the political, ideological, and social causes for which the Union advocates,” the suit says.
“If the Union immediately returned all money in dues, she would forego seeking the interest and punitive damages to which she may otherwise be entitled.”
Karin Sweigart, an attorney for the Freedom Foundation — the think tank that’s representing Quezambra — called the UDW’s alleged actions “outrageous.”
“Trespassing on a person’s property against his or her will, frightening the person’s disabled child, and forging a signature to obtain money from the person should not be tolerated,” Sweigart said in a statement.
“Just forging someone’s signature to commit that person to paying for union advocacy or political causes against that person’s will would be bad enough. But because the violation is also a constitutional one, the conduct is doubly egregious.”
It’s worth noting that thus far, Quezambra claims are just that — allegations.
But that doesn’t mean conservatives shouldn’t want to expose unions for what they’ve become — free-market leeches that drag businesses and individuals into the ground.
And if what Quezambra is saying is true, then the UDW needs to pay.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.