U.S. Supreme Court case could cripple public employee unions
A case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week – one backed by a number of anti-union organizations – could have enormous implications for the future of public employee unions.
On Jan. 21, the court heard arguments in Harris v. Quinn, a case that originated in Illinois when the state declared that personal care assistants (also known as home health care aides) paid from state Medicaid dollars would be treated as state employees for collective bargaining purposes.
One of these personal care assistants, Pamela Harris, agreed to become a plaintiff in a suit filed by the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which sought to undermine the right of these employees to form a union.
Even though both an Illinois circuit court and the appellate court ruled against National Right to Work’s argument, the U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the appeal of the case over the objections of the Obama administration.
The suit contends that it is unconstitutional for unions in the public sector to charge a “fair-share fee” to employees in a bargaining unit who choose not to be union members. It goes even further, not only seeking to prevent a union from negotiating on behalf of everyone in a bargaining unit, but also seeking to severely limit the issues that can be negotiated.
Given the importance of the case, the AFL-CIO and other unions, along with the White House, intervened and argued in defense of the state of Illinois’ position.
Oral arguments focused primarily on whether the court should uphold a decades-old precedent established in the case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The “Abood” decision helped establish the legal foundation for public employee collective bargaining rights – and the right of a public employee union to collect a “fair-share fee.”
While court-watchers in the media will try to predict how the court will rule based on these arguments, recent history has shown there’s little value in speculating on how the court will decide.
A ruling in the case is expected around June, though an exact date is completely up to the justices on the court.
It is important to stress that the state of Illinois did not require that personal care assistants have union representation. It merely gave them the legal right to make that decision for themselves. Because unions are democratic entities, unlike the big businesses that back the National Right to Work Foundation, the personal care assistants were able to vote on whether they wanted union representation--and they voted against such representation.
So the plaintiff in this case, Pamela Harris, is not a member of a union, hence not paying any union dues or fair share fees.
However, given the propensity of the current Republican-dominated Supreme Court to issue rulings that strongly favor corporate interests, there is a very real danger that National Right to Work could prevail in this case.
A range of rulings are possible, including a very narrow one that would only affect home health care workers. However, the case has turned into a rallying point for right-wing, antiunion organizations – along with National Right to Work, the Illinois Policy Institute and the Cato Institute have all become involved. Briefs filed by those groups urge the court to issue a ruling that would severely cripple all public employee unions, including AFSCME.
If the court rules that fair share fees in the public sector are unconstitutional, then public employee unions would be forced to devote resources toward representing employees who contribute no dues or fees.
“The Supreme Court ‘s willingness to take up this case despite the fact that two lower courts very forcefully rejected the arguments being made is cause for grave concern,” said Council 31 Deputy Director Roberta Lynch. “Obviously, the labor movement in the public sector would be profoundly damaged if it is required to represent employees who are not required to contribute anything toward that representation.”