Conservative Supreme Court Justices Undermine Fight On Behalf of Lowpaid Workers, Fastest Growing Segment of Workforce

Today, the five conservatives of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled ruled, that state-paid homecare workers cannot be required to pay their fair share of the costs of union representation to the union elected by a majority to serve as their the exclusive bargaining representative. The Supreme Court’s decision from Harris v. Quinn ignores years of well-established precedent in finding that the First Amendment prohibits these provisions for public employees who are employed directly by individual clients but whose wages and benefits and many other conditions of employment are the result of negotiated contracts between the union and the state.

This ruling has no immediate or direct application to public employees who are employed directly by the state or by a specific city, town or state agency. But the Supreme Court’s decision strongly suggests that, if asked, it will gladly upset the longstanding arrangement that has improved the health, safety and livelihood of millions of Americans.

Here’s a little background on the Harris v. Quinn decision. Most collective bargaining agreements require that employees pay either full union dues or an agency service fee that is roughly proportionate to the union’s cost for negotiating and administering the contract. This solidarity enables the union to negotiate better terms and conditions for all members, instead of relying just on voluntary donations. Fair share or agency fees are the way that collective bargaining agreements deal with the problem of free riders, those who benefit from union representation but contribute nothing to the cost of negotiating better contracts.

Homecare workers are among the fastest growing segment of the workforce as more ailing Americans look for ways to remain in their homes while receiving appropriate care and avoiding institutional settings. Many states, including Massachusetts, have passed laws allowing homecare and daycare employees to unionize. They have done so because it helps to improve the quality of care; unionized homecare workers have been able to achieve better wages and working conditions. In turn, this has led to greater stability in the workforce, i.e., less turnover.

These “agency service fee” provisions have existed without much rancor in private sector contracts. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that these “agency service fee” requirements are constitutional in public sector collective bargaining agreements. In today’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend that established precedent of 1977 case to what it described as a “partial public employee.”

In Harris v. Quinn, a few employees, heavily supported by the Right to Work Committee, objected to paying their fair share fees to the union effort that substantially improved their take home pay. Thanks to SEIU, the pay increased from $7 an hour to $11.65, with an increase to $13 due this December. The Supreme Court basically ruled that public employees who do not have a traditional employee-employer relationship with a public employer cannot be compelled to pay their fair share for collective bargaining.

The Court’s decision is somewhat narrow. It did not hold that homecare workers do not have a right to engage in collective bargaining with the state. The Court also did not hold that a union selected by a majority of such workers cannot serve as the exclusive representative of all such workers, including those who object to the Union. The Supreme Court merely held that nonmembers of the union could not be required to pay their fair share of the cost of that representation. The Court also did not overrule the 1977 Abood decision that upheld such “fair share” fees generally in public sector collective bargaining.

While the Harris v. Quinn decision is undeniably a disappointment and setback to efforts to help more low-paid workers that care for our loved ones, unions and public employees remain free to negotiate fair share provisions for public employees who work directly for governmental bodies.
This decision illustrates the ongoing efforts – in the courts and by conservative politicians - to injure the 99% by weakening the unions that are their most effective voice.