The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in the Harris v. Quinn case, finding that the partial public employees
in question can't be required to pay agency fees to unions. The Court did not overturn decades-old precedent to eliminate agency fees for public employees in general.
The decision was of concern because of the potential risks of a broader negative ruling about paying agency fees to public employee unions.
This particular case was about in-home personal assistants who are paid by the state of Illinois to provide services to Medicaid recipients who would otherwise require institutional care. The employees are represented by SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana (SEIU–HII), which negotiates a state contract for these employees. The employees had been required to pay agency fees to SEIU–HII. Agency fees (sometimes called fair share fees) are meant to cover the cost of representing employees who are not union members, such as in contract negotiations and grievances.
We will update the links below throughout the day.
Links
- Harris v. Quinn decision (United States Supreme Court) [PDF]
- Analysis
(AKA why we're not out of the woods yet) - News Coverage
- Supreme Court: Home health workers can't be forced to pay union dues (Los Angeles Times)
- Supreme Court deals setback to unions in Illinois case (Chicago Tribune)
- Supreme Court: Home health-care workers can’t be required to pay union fees (The Washington Post)
- Supreme Court: Private contractors not obligated to pay public union fees (CBS News)
- Supreme Court narrowly limits reach of labor unions (CNN)
- Union Response
- Home Care Workers Vow to Stand Up for Good Jobs and Quality Home Care in Wake of Harris v. Quinn Ruling (SEIU press release)
- Supreme Court Case Could Impact Home Care Workers and Consumers — SEIU blog entry by an Illinois home care worker from January (SEIU)
No comments:
Post a Comment