Lawsuit seeks to overturn Michigan home caregivers’ unionization vote

Derk Wilcox, senior attorney with the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, discussed the case in an interview with The Center Square.

“This case is about whether the state can redefine home caregivers as government employees simply to facilitate union representation,” Wilcox said. “Family members who provide care at home are not state workers. If Michigan can label them as such for union purposes, it raises serious questions about the constitutional safeguards that are supposed to limit government power.”

Under the reclassification, the home caregivers are employees of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services solely for collective bargaining purposes.

According to the foundation, although SEIU Healthcare Michigan cannot negotiate caregivers’ wages or working conditions, it can collect dues from members and advocate for higher caregiver payments in its role as their “bargaining representative.”

The lawsuit names the Michigan Employment Relations Commission and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services as defendants, along with a number of state employees from those agencies.

It argues that the legislative changes are a “novel and unconstitutional” attempt to benefit the union, alleging they violate a provision of the Michigan Constitution granting the MCSC plenary control over almost all state employees. According to the lawsuit, the changes improperly strip the commission of that authority over these home care workers.

The foundation filed the lawsuit on behalf of James “Jase” Bolger, a former member of the Michigan Civil Service Commission, in his private capacity.

“Michigan’s Constitution puts safeguards around state employment for a reason: to keep politicians from using it to serve special interests,” Bolger said. “Having served on the Civil Service Commission, I understand the importance of those protections.”

The lawsuit comes a year after MERC conducted and certified an election in which Michigan home care workers voted to join SEIU Healthcare Michigan—the largest health care union in the state.

The union hailed the result as “the largest union election victory in the Midwest since auto workers organized in the 1940s.” Of the 32,000 home care workers who voted, 73% supported unionization.

“This all happened because we took a stand: home care workers and the people we care for deserve better,” said Phyllis Pride, a home care worker from Ecorse, last October. “We deserve respect and dignity. That starts with a union. Together, in SEIU Healthcare Michigan, we can now build the long-term care system Michigan deserves.”

This is the foundation’s second lawsuit challenging the system. The first was dismissed in August on procedural grounds, leaving the constitutional claims unresolved.

“The case continues the legal foundation’s work defending home caregivers from unwanted union representation and efforts to divert caregiver payments into union dues,” the foundation said.

Wilcox explained why it is important for the MCSC, which oversees employment rules for most Michigan state government workers, to still have authority.

“The Civil Service Commission exists to keep state employment from political manipulation,” he said. “Michigan lawmakers have classified people who care for family members or friends in their own homes as state employees solely for the purpose of unionization. The lawsuit asks the court to uphold the Michigan Constitution’s rules for state employment and invalidate the election that made SEIU Healthcare Michigan the sole bargaining representative for these caregivers.”

Though not discussed in the lawsuit, both Wilcox and Bolger raised concerns about the union “skimming” dues off of taxpayer-funded employment payments owed to home care workers.

“I’m bringing this lawsuit not just because this skim is a scam but because the legislature cannot sidestep the constitution to benefit a major donor, no matter how big and powerful that union is,” Bolger said.

Wilcox added to that, providing background to this case.

“In the early 2000s, SEIU skimmed more than $34 million in dues from Medicaid payments intended to support home caregivers and their loved ones,” he said. “In 2024, lawmakers revived the arrangement, creating a new avenue for the union to skim dues from caregivers who are often caring for family members at home.”

That system remained in place until 2013, when the foundation worked with Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to end it.

SEIU Healthcare Michigan characterized the move as Snyder stripping home care workers of their union rights.

“In the face of efforts by extremists to roll back labor rights and deepen racial and economic inequality, Michigan home care workers have shown what is possible when workers choose solidarity over division, and hope over fear,” it said in a 2025 press release.

Wilcox flagged a deeper concern he has with the growth in dues to the union, pointing to why the lawsuit seeks both to invalidate last year’s vote, but also preventing a new “revenue stream” for the union.

“The national SEIU ranked in the top 1% of campaign contributors nationwide in the last election cycle, spending more than $35 million, with 99.9% going to Democratic candidates and Democratic-aligned groups,” Wilcox said.

The Center Square previously reported on The Freedom Foundation’s door-knocking efforts earlier this fall as part of a campaign encouraging those same home caregivers to exercise what the organization described as their “constitutional and SCOTUS-protected right to opt out of union representation” by SEIU Healthcare Michigan.

The Michigan Employment Relations Commission and SEIU Healthcare Michigan did not respond to requests from The Center Square for comment.