What the Supreme Court’s Union Dues Ruling Means
So glad that people won’t be forced to donate to liberal unions.
Check it out:
“The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on Monday that mandatory public union dues violate some members’ First Amendment rights.” In the ruling, “Justice Samuel Alito said that the precedent that had upheld the state of Illinois’ right to require membership dues was shaky.
“The case, Harris v. Quinn, involves Pamela Harris, a home-caregiver in Illinois who takes care of her disabled son. Harris is among home caregivers who have decided not to unionize through the Service Employees International Union, opting instead to bargain directly with the Medicaid recipients who decide how much money to allocate to their caregivers.” The SEIU, the tentacles are everywhere. These people eeking to even unionize parents offering home care to their own children.
“The case posed a challenge to so-called ‘fair-play fees,’ which allow unions to collect dues from employees who aren’t in the union but who still benefit from the bargains unions strike with employers.” See? So the Drive-Bys say already it’s unfair. These people, they’re being paid, they’re being reimbursed because of what unions have secured for them but yet they don’t have to pay any dues. It’s totally unfair to the union.
“In the case of public-sector unions, though, the employer is the government. And for that reason, the challengers in Harris argued, the unions’ collective bargaining is inherently a political activity — unions are essentially lobbying the government. The challengers said allowing public-sector unions to collect fair-play fees is therefore requiring nonunion employees to support political activities they don’t necessarily agree with — a violation of their First Amendment rights.”
But the National Journal hopefully, breathlessly says: “There may be one silver lining for public unions, though. The Harris v. Quinn ruling is somewhat narrowly tailored to home caregivers, known as PAs. ‘PAs are much different from public employees,’ Alito wrote. ‘Unlike full-fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment. Even the scope of collective bargaining on their behalf is sharply limited.'”
So despite the National Journal’s headline — which is: “The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Devastating Blow to Public Unions” — this ruling is pretty narrow. It’s as narrow as it can be. It only says that public sector unions cannot require dues from employees who are directly answerable to their customers rather than the state, like an in-home caregiver, which was the case here. This ruling is not going to affect the vast majority of state or federal employees.