The conservative majority on the Supreme Court on Monday signaled its distaste for state laws requiring public-sector workers to pay union dues — but stopped short of sweeping them away, handing organized labor a partial victory in a contentious case.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled in Harris v. Quin n that home health care workers in Illinois cannot be compelled to pay dues to a union they don’t wish to join. Illinois is one of 26 states that require public-sector workers — such as firefighters, police officers and teachers — to pay dues to the unions that negotiate their contracts and represent them in grievances, even if the employees find the union’s advocacy work distasteful.
Continue Reading
Union leaders had feared that the justices might strike down those state laws as unconstitutional. The justices did not go that far. They issued a more narrow ruling that the home health care workers at issue in the case are not “full-fledged public employees” because they are hired and fired by individual patients and work in private homes, though they are paid in part by the state, via Medicaid.
Because they’re not truly state employees, the justices decided these workers did not have to pay union dues.
(Also on POLITICO: SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on contraception mandate)
That ruling is a blow to the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers and other unions that have organized tens of thousands of home health workers in states including Illinois, California and Connecticut. Those workers can now decide whether they want to pay dues.
Stephanie Taylor, a former labor organizer of home health workers, called the ruling “a tragedy for the workers who need a voice at work most.” Taylor, who co-founded a liberal advocacy group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, called the court “a disgrace.”
Conservatives, however, hailed the ruling — and held out hope that the court would build on it in future terms.
Indeed, in writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito sharply criticized a 1977 precedent, known as Abood, that granted states the right to compel union dues. Alito called that ruling “questionable” and “anomalous,” all but inviting a further challenge in the future. He was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.
(Earlier on POLITICO: Big unions could take big SCOTUS hit)
Alito cited a “bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
The court has previously ruled that workers can’t be forced to pay for their union’s political advocacy. But under Abood, they can be compelled to pay their fair share of the union’s bargaining costs. The workers in Harris v. Quinn argued that the union’s bargaining stance is inherently political, and thus they should not be forced to subsidize it, even if they benefit in the end from the contract that’s being negotiated.
The justices sidestepped that issue in Monday’s ruling because they found that the health care workers were not bona fide state employees. But they could get another chance as early as next year.
The Center for Individual Rights is representing several California teachers suing to get out of paying union dues on First Amendment grounds. That lawsuit is pending before the Ninth Circuit, and plaintiffs hope to bring it before the Supreme Court.
Terry Pell, the center’s president, applauded Monday’s ruling as “a big step forward in recognizing the rights of individual employees to decide for themselves whether to support a union.” Referring to his case on behalf of the California teachers, he added: “Today’s decision is a good sign of things to come.”
If the California teachers — or other plaintiffs — are able to persuade the court to overturn Abood and abolish compulsory dues, that could decimate union finances and membership.
Justice Elena Kagan appeared sensitive to that possibility in her dissent.
She criticized her fellow justices for “taking potshots at Abood” and insisted that Alito was wrong to describe that decision as questionable.
“The Abood rule is deeply entrenched, and it is the foundation for not tens or hundreds, but thousands of contracts between unions and governments” across the U.S., Kagan wrote.
The majority, Kagan wrote, has no justification for even considering overturning a precedent nearly four decades old.
Kagan was joined in her dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Union leaders shaken by Monday’s ruling — and fearful of bigger blows to come — said they would redouble their efforts to organize workers and persuade them of the merits of both joining a union and supporting it financially.
“No court case is going to stand in the way of home care workers coming together to have a strong voice for good jobs and quality home care,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the SEIU.
Unions say compulsory dues, also known as “agency fees,” are the only way to ensure that all workers pay their fair share of the costs unions incur to represent them. The compulsory dues also strengthen unions financially and help them maintain political clout.
“We need workplaces, including public schools, where front-line employees have a voice,” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. “Today’s decision shuts the door on one proven method for ensuring that public-sector workers’ voices are heard.”
Source: Top Stories - Google News - http://ift.tt/1r74JPz
0 comments:
Post a Comment