U.S. Supreme Court ruling avoids dismantling union-fee system
06/30/2014 2:49 PM
10/08/2014 12:03 PM
In a 5-4 ruling that split along philosophical lines, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said that Illinois home health workers paid with public money can reject union membership.
The implications for California and other states weren’t clear in the hours after the court issued its decision, legal experts and union officials said.
“There will be more court challenges” as unions and anti-labor groups nationwide probe the boundaries of the high court’s ruling, said Daniel J.B. Mitchell, a labor-law and history expert at UCLA. “It’s full employment for lawyers.”
Still, the ruling in Harris v. Quinn clearly stopped short of what unions feared by leaving in place a 37-year-old precedent that says public-sector workers can be compelled to pay unions for the cost of non-political representation in contract talks or workplace grievances. The 1977 high court ruling said that such payments, known as “fair-share fees,” maintained labor peace and kept non-dues-paying workers from freeloading on the contributions of members who voluntarily pay dues.
The current case surfaced in 2011, when Pamela Harris and eight other in-home care workers in Illinois said they didn’t want SEIU’s representation and shouldn’t have to pay any money to the union. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which won a 2012 Supreme Court case against SEIU Local 1000 over dues it illegally imposed on its members, had asked the court wipe out that former decision.
The court’s decision on Monday split public employees into two groups: home-health workers who are paid with tax dollars but hired and fired by the individuals they serve, and “full-fledged” public employees whose hiring, duties, workplace rights and termination are all subject to civil service. The 1977 decision supporting compulsory union payments applies only to full-fledged workers, the court said, not quasi-public employees such as home-health aides.
About This BlogJon Ortiz launched The State Worker blog in 2008 to cover state government from the perspective of California government employees. Every day he filters the news through a single question: "What does this mean for state workers?" Join Ortiz for updates and debate on state pay, benefits, pensions, contracts and jobs. Contact him at email@example.com or 916-321-1043. Twitter: @TheStateWorker.
Join the Discussion
The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.