While the Twitterverse remains obsessed with the US Supreme Court’s awful ruling in the Hobby Lobby case—that closely held corporations can exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception requirements on religious grounds—a potentially more impactful decision isn’t getting nearly as much attention.
Again, by 5-4 vote split purely on ideological grounds, the court has ruled that home health care workers in Illinois have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay “agency fees” (you know, dues) to the union that represents them. There is little analysis so far online, and I haven’t had time to more than skim the decision, let alone wrap my mind around it, but the conclusion of Justice Elana Kagan’s dissenting opinion (pdf) is probably instructive:
For many decades, Americans have debated the pros and cons of right-to-work laws and fair-share requirements. All across the country and continuing to the present day, citizens have engaged in passionate argument about the issue and have made disparate policy choices. The petitioners in this case asked this Court to end that discussion for the entire public sector, by overruling Abood and thus imposing a right-to-work regime for all government employees. The good news out of this case is clear: The majority declined that radical request. The Court did not, as the petitioners wanted, deprive every state and local government, in the management of their employees and programs, of the tool that many have thought neces- sary and appropriate to make collective bargaining work.
The bad news is just as simple: The majority robbed Illinois of that choice in administering its in-home care program.
Just like in Hobby Lobby, newspaper ledes will likely describe Harris v. Quinn as a “narrow” opinion. It did not overturn Abood, and thus apparently did not drive the final nail into the coffin of organized labor by extending “right to work” rules to all public employee unions. But it also did not extend Abood’s protections to home health care workers in Illinois. And that could potentially have an enormous political impact here in Washington State.
By far the most influential and successful union in Washington in recent years has been SEIU Healthcare 775NW, which organized and represents the state’s 40,000 in-home health care workers. It was SEIU 775 that largely funded the organizing efforts behind Seattle’s fast food strikes and SeaTac’s $15 minimum wage initiative. It was SEIU 775 president David Rolf who co-chaired the mayor’s Income Inequality Advisory Committee, and played a major role in pushing through our new minimum wage law. Other locals may grumble at the assertion, but it is fair to say that SEIU 775 has been the most powerful and effective union in the state.
But if the court’s ruling in Harris v. Quinn extends to Washington State, then SEIU 775 may have just been largely defunded, and the state’s in-home health care workers left without effective representation.
Because that’s how “right to work” works. If workers are given the right to opt out of paying union dues, narrow self-interest dictates that many of them will become freeloaders, benefitting from union contracts without bearing any of the cost of negotiating them. I mean, if you’re struggling to make ends meet on $12 an hour, what are you going to pay first—your electric bill or your union dues? And without the majority of the workers paying their dues, unions wither away into political insignificance, lacking the funds to effectively organize, advertise, or make political contributions. As the union grows politically weaker, its ability to collectively bargain on behalf of its members weakens too. And as the union becomes a less effective negotiator, fewer and fewer members choose to pay their dues.
It is that sort of death spiral that has made it nearly impossible to unionize in “right to work” states.
I’ve asked SEIU 775 for comment and was told that they are still “analyzing the decision.”
Maybe organized labor largely dodged a bullet in Harris v. Quinn. This time. Maybe. But clearly some of our nation’s lowest paid and most vulnerable workers did not. And if this ruling applies to in-home health care workers in Washington the same way it applies to in-home health care workers in Illinois, then it may end up having an enormous impact on local politics, largely defunding what has been the most powerful and effective union in the state.
UPDATE: SEIU 775 spokesperson Jackson Holtz offers the following defiant response: “Home health care workers in Washington will continue to stand with low wage workers throughout the state and around the country in our fight to lift workers out of poverty. Today’s Supreme Court decision will in no way change that.”
Holtz emphasizes that this is “a long and complicated opinion,” and that Washington’s in-home health care system is very, very different from the program and Illinois. “We have a far more robust collective bargaining model through which workers have won benefits,” says Holtz, like health insurance, mandatory training, and certification, as opposed to just wages. “The distinctions between the two programs are too innumerable to go through.”
In other words, their lawyers are still trying to figure out what this all means.
One thing that seems certain is that today’s ruling will surely spark similar lawsuits here in Washington State, attempting to widen the crack provided by Justice Alito’s opinion in an effort to further erode the few legal protections still afforded organized labor.
Last week you were all upset about forced expenses and the effect on lower-wage employees.
Well, the forced expense that is dues paid to a union may have just gone away in this case, if you correctly surmise. That makes the employee a freeloader?
Further, as minimum wages increase (remember, you wanted it), the political sway of a union decreases (everybody at the low end of the wage scale gets a raise, not just unionized employees, right?), and the value of a union to an employee therefore decreases.
A decision to opt out of previously forced union dues payments means more money in the pocket of the lowly-paid health care employee. That employee, in ‘dodging a bullet’, may elect to take home more money to his/her needy family.
I think, between union and union members, you misperceive which is freeloading.
Let the celebration of higher take-home pay to health care providers begin. YLB, you go first.
Round of applause to the Supreme Court.
unions wither away into political INsignificance
SEIU 775NW hasn’t done much for its members. Caregivers start out at $10.53 an hour — just barely above the state minimum wage, and have to PAY for 70 hours of training, licensing exam costs, and licensing fees — all thanks to initiatives sponsored by SEIU — within the first 120 days of employment to keep their just above minimum wage positions. Meantime, SEIU has been fighting for OTHER employees in much less demanding work — such as hotel cleaners — to get $15 per hour. Why SHOULD anyone be willing to pay union dues for such crappy wages? The NON-UNION caregiving agencies invariably pay more, than do SEIU represented groups. And a lot of the non-union agencies not only pay the cost of caregiver training, but also pay their employees regular hourly pay for taking the training.
@4 That’s bullshit. The state signed a new contract last year. Starting pay increases to $11 an hour on July 1. Caregivers who have worked the equivalent of 7 years will earn $14.50 an hour, $15 with additional training and certification. Also, workers get a decent health insurance package.
Furthermore, what do you think the minimum wage battle is all about? SEIU 775 just won $15 an hour for all its workers in Seattle! If they win a $12 an hour minimum wage statewide, they’ll have bumped starting pay up another bump. How could a higher minimum wage not benefit their low-wage members?
SEIU reminds of the NRA, a political parasite more concerned about growing it’s influence than anything else. Lies from David Rolf are as bad as lies from Wayne Lapierre. How does forcing people into Unions they don’t want to be a part of and pay dues to said Union not extortion? Good for the SCOTUS for getting this one is right.
This decision does not apply to all public sector employees. In Illinois, home healthcare workers wages are set by the legislature not collectively bargained. This is not a good decision, but it does not strike down the requirement for all public sector employees to pay agency fees. Public sector unions are going to have to more actively bargain their contracts. SEIU has many groups of members besides home healthcare workers, and it would not be good if this applied to them. The could still operate with the support from employees like King County Parks Landscapers that actively collectively bargain there contracts.
@1 “That makes the employee a freeloader?”
Yes.
Alioto would rule the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional if he got the chance. This is what you get when Republican presidents appoint SCOTUS justices. Another reason why voting for Republicans should be a felony.
@ 9
Since you mentioned felony it’s no surprise you used the last name of a prominent California Democrat.
But it’s Alito, dumbass.
If the union is so good, people will pay to stay in it. If it is an expense that is not needed then it will go away. The bully tactics will not work anymore. i applaud the supreme court on this.
@11: No, they won’t. The takers in the group will kick up their feet and make snide comments about the union folk who fight to make life better, while at the same time enjoying all the benefits that come from the contract. I’m not going to shed a single tear for quasi-scabs who don’t want to pay their fair share.
An individual’s rights to form a corporation with whatever rules they want: sacrosanct.
An individual’s rights to form a union with any rules at all: HAHAHAHAHA FUCK YOU
So the supremes decided it’s ok to be a health care worker amongst a unionized labor pool without contributing to the SEIU 775 and Rolf’s $170k salary and aggrandizing about min wage workers in fast food, etc ?
@12 “union folk who fight to make life better” LOL, you should do stand up.
Goldy @ 4
Sorry, SEIU 775NW is more like the “company union”, which takes money from compliant sheep employees, and does nothing for them.
The situation in Illinois was very similar, which is probably why the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the Abood rule. In both Washington and Illinois, the state authorities which set the very low wages for home care workers are the same “liberal” Democrats that the SEIU unions in each state support. I think the Supreme Court majority basically felt the home care workers were being ripped off by SEIU with no real benefits from union representation — PLUS having the deck stacked against them by STATE labor relation laws (federal labor relation laws do not apply to state employees) that makes it practically impossible for home care workers to get rid of SEIU or switch to a more effective union. So the five more conservative justices came up with a new legal standard without overruling Abood so that these home care workers could get out of paying union dues.
I am VERY familiar with the financial realities facing home care workers, since my disabled daughter is very dependent on these services. I want care providers to make the MOST money and benefits possible when working with my daughter, since I want competent and hopefully superior care providers — and to have a care provider in the first place, since the very low wages often make it difficult or impossible to get someone to do the work.
Sad fact is that SEIU represented home care workers invariably make LESS money per hour than “non-union” workers. Sometimes, the union benefits may be slightly better, depending on the worker’s individual circumstances. And that is less money per hour BEFORE paying the union dues to SEIU.
It is actually a fairly competitive marketplace, when there is a choice between union and non-union home care workers. Home care workers can choose whether they want to work through a union agency or a non-union agency. Likewise, clients (or their guardians) can determine whether they want to contract through a union agency or a non-union agency for a care provider.
With one major exception. Five years ago, SEIU got the legislature to pass SHB 2361 in 2009, which prohibited family members of clients from being hired through agencies. Earlier, SEIU had stacked the deck through state labor relations laws, which made individual providers working through DSHS pretty much forced to join SEIU by manipulating the union certification process.
As a result, family members working as care providers through non-union agencies were forced to take a substantial PAY CUT by having to work directly through DSHS as SEIU represented employees.
For example, in Carter v. Gregoire, 672 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1154 (W.D.Wash. 2009), a woman employed as a caregiver for her adult son was making $12.43 per hour through First Choice, a non-union agency. Due to SHB 2361, the mother was forced to work as an individual provider directly through DSHS, where she would be represented by SEIU, and would be making only $10.03 per hour BEFORE deduction of the SEIU dues (or agency representation fees).
Unfortunately, in Carter v. Gregoire, Judge Settle could not find any legal basis to strike down the state’s prohibition that family members could not work at higher paying non-union agencies and would instead be required to work in union positions directly through DSHS for nearly 20% less (before SEIU dues).
What is REALLY interesting is that one argument used by former Governor Christine Gregoire in upholding SHB 2361 is that it was rational and good public policy for the State of Washington to SAVE MONEY by forcing family members to work as home care workers only in LOWER PAYING SEIU represented positions through DSHS, instead of higher paying non-union agencies. Carter v. Gregoire, 672 F.Supp.2d at 1159-60.
So under the circumstances, the Harris v. Quinn decision makes perfect sense. A “company union” such as SEIU, that deliberately negotiates LOWER pay for its members than available for non-union employees, and further forces a certain category (family members of clients) into LOWER pay by prohibiting them from working in non-union positions altogether — simply doesn’t deserve to be funded at all. Either SEIU will have to start obtaining HIGHER wages for its members for a change, or it will be dramatically reduced in both membership and funding.
It is ironic that the $15 per hour Seattle minimum wage is the ONLY thing that SEIU is doing that will result in decent wages for ANY of its members. However, Seattle is only about 8% of the state population wise, and SEIU members in the other 92% of the state are still getting screwed. And someone in the most unskilled non-union job in Seattle will still be making more take home pay than a SEIU home care worker in Seattle — who will have their pay reduced by SEIU dues or agency fees (at least until Harris v. Quinn is enforced in Washington).
Frankly, home care workers are far more deserving of a $15 per hour wage than ANY of the other workers currently making under $15 per hour. If SEIU were a decent and effective union, home care workers would already be getting $15 per hour in this state, especially since the politicians supported by SEIU happen to be in the majority in this state.
But what can I say of ANYONE who would hire LUKE ESSER as their lobbyist — as SEIU did after he was booted out as Chair of the state REPUBLICAN party?
Good golly you loser DUMMOCRETIN libtards. Be honest here over the SCOTUS decision. Why not hear from the person who brought up the lawsuit instead of the standard left wrong locations y’all love to visit?
The lead lady in the Illinois law suit sued because she took care of her 25 year old disabled son at home and through the Illinois guvnur the SEIU claimed she had to pay dues even though she purposely stayed at home for her son.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....eme-court/
Good golly y’all look at everything one way… the WRONG way!
Just like the constitutional lawyer tried to make recess appointments and the FULL SCOTUS smacked back that constitutional lawyer!
Toooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn
Fuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnny
Make no mistake, Republican justices are deciding cases based on politics, not law. If you want rule of law in our country, you have to vote for Democratic presidents who will appoint impartial justices.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/.....?hpt=hp_c2
@18 Of course, Republican presidents NEVER make recess appointments to bypass the U.S. Senate …
So Puddy, explain why recess appointments are legal under Republican presidents, but illegal under Democratic presidents?
Make no mistake, Democratic justices are deciding cases based on politics, not law. If you want rule of law in our country, you have to vote for Republican presidents who will appoint impartial justices.
All the judges on the Supreme Court are biased political appointees. That’s just the nature of the court.
The worst part about these judges is that they actually think they’re supreme….to everyone else on the planet.
@23 Some are more nakedly partisan than others.
24
…which would depend upon your point of view. One person’s biased politico is another’s hero.
24
…which would depend upon your point of view. One person’s biased politico is another’s hero.
@24,
And we see how Ruth Ginsberg went nutzo over the Hobby Lobby decision to block after conception contraceptives. Life begins at fertilization and SCOTUS agreed!
@21 Roger Roadblock IDIOT Wabbit is upset…
Maybe because the Senate and House were ACTUALLY on recess? Hmmm…? IDIOT Wabbit?
Are you actually becoming this stooooooooooooopid due to senility or are you really this stooooooooooooopid tout le temps!
@26. I’m very glad you do not plan on stepping up to adopt a bunch of unwanted children.
Now that SEIU 775 & David Rolf are backing a dishonest campaign of boycotting local businesses that supported a $12.50 minimum wage with no waivers for special interests or unions, this SCOTUS decision looks even better.