In this case, the union represents the poorest workers − home health care attendants.
Although I do understand the twisted reasoning in their arguments, I wonder that judges don’t seem to understand that calling an organization the “National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation” means the opposite of “right to work.” In fact, it also means the opposite of “national.” It has nothing to do with the nation and everything to do with anti-nation corporations.
What does it mean? It means “you don’t have the right to form or join a union,” but hey, this is the way language goes in our current judicial system.
And I understand that it is corporate big money that fronts these smash-all-unions efforts and that they are drooling about getting their case to the Supreme Five.
What I don’t understand is why. Why go after these poor people upon whom a lot of our families depend? It is more than bully-boy antics; it is ugly.