Supreme Court Weighs Unions' Future

Posted on 23 April 2014

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend by emailSend by email

By Kokayi Kwa Jitahidi

Springtime is typically emblematic of the birth and growth of new life forms. However, in 2014 this time of year could become a moment of death for the labor movement as we have come to know it.

In the coming weeks the United States Supreme Court will render a decision in the case of Harris v. Quinn that could paralyze labor’s ability to organize workers throughout the country. Despite its major implications, the case remains largely absent from our mainstream discourse or even within discussions among progressive allies.

Harris v. Quinn comes out of years of successful organizing by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to win collective bargaining rights for thousands of home health and child care workers in Illinois. In 2009, Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed an executive order to grant home care workers the right to unionize.

The main plaintiff in the case, Pamela Harris, contends that she and six other home caregivers do not want to be union members and, therefore, should not be forced to pay what are known as agency fees. These are monies collected from nonunion members in lieu of dues to help pay for the cost of representing all workers within a given bargaining unit.

Courts have protected this practice numerous times, utilizing the precedent established in Abood v. Detroit School Board (1977). Abood affirmed that unions could collect fees from nonunion members within a unionized workplace, as long as those fees are not used for ideological or political purposes.

The phrase “ideological or political purposes” is key to why this case is significant to the labor movement and the country as a whole. The plaintiffs’ anti-union conservative supporters and financiers are putting forward an ideological and political argument against the perceived dominance of labor within Illinois’ political system. This battle is really about conservative and corporate interests’ attempting to diminish Democratic power in Illinois, thus putting Illinois’ 20 Electoral College votes and its state legislature in play for the Republican Party for years to come.

Attorneys for Harris argue that:

  • Workers who do home health care are not really state employees and, therefore, Governor Quinn should not have granted them collective bargaining rights, and
  • Abood should be overturned because it violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection under the law.

While the lower courts have sided with Governor Quinn and the State of Illinois, the Supreme Court, with its conservative-led majority, could go another direction. It could rule that home care workers and, by extension, child care workers, are not state employees and, therefore, cannot collectively bargain. Such a ruling would challenge the status of thousands of service workers across the nation who have successfully fought to have a real voice in the workplace.

However, there is a more damaging possibility. The high court could choose to attack the financial foundation of organized labor by reversing Abood — ruling that agency fees are indeed a violation of the plaintiffs’ rights. Such a ruling could essentially make every state a “right to work” state. This would mean that labor unions would have to spend most of their time soliciting dues rather than fighting to improve working conditions for their members. One would only have to look at Wisconsin to see the potential damage a decision like that could create.

Of course, the court could surprise us all and affirm the decision of the lower courts. However, many legal experts believe that the Supreme Court took on this case to establish a new precedent. One that would make organizing workers in both the public and private sectors a more difficult and strenuous task for an already declining labor movement.

It's time to start discussing Harris v. Quinn.

This article was originally published at Capital & Main.

Unions can do great things for members...and I have been a union member all my working life...however, no one should be forced to join. I must admit that before the Supreme Court allowed unions to make non-member pay a rep fee, I was always unhappy that my money paid for negotiations that non-members benefited from also.

Unions should not be allowed in government entities.

by paying agency fees. Unions are obligated under law to represent all eligible employees within the unit. The agency fee is determined as the cost of doing this work. If the union can't charge a fee that covers the cost of doing the work, the union can't do the work. A union, like any other organization, can't run in the red. It must at least break even to keep functioning. That is what the agency fee provides for. Those who wish to join of their own free will pay an additional fee (usually quite small) to gain the ability to vote and run for office, and to contribute their money to union PACs that lobby or support legislation that improves working conditions for members.

I have been active in my union for over 20 years. It's surprisingly common to find that employees who refuse to join because they think unions are wrong and unnecessary, or corrupt, or whatever, are more than happy to rely on union representation when their jobs are on the line due to contract violation or unfair labor practice. They are more than happy to accept whatever wage and benefit increases are delivered to members due to union work. I don't have a shred of respect for these types. But because they benefit, they should be made to pay the agency fee.

I see it like paying your water bill. You can choose not to pay it and then get your water on your own from where ever you can. But it you want water in your house, you must pay the cost to deliver that water to you.

Since they can't win on actual votes from actual voters because so few actually agree with their craziness, and so many voters actually disagree with their positions, they have to resort to "ends justify the means" and "win at any cost" strategies. So disgusting and frightening.