U.S. Supreme Court case could harm public employee unions The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this spring on a case that could potentially harm public employee unions. In January, the court heard oral arguments on Harris v. Quinn, which will decide whether public employee unions can continue to collect agency shop fees from workers who are covered by public collective bargaining agreements. If the Supreme Court rules against the ability of unions to collect these fees, it will dramatically affect the unions’ ability to effectively represent workers like you. Under current federal law, the Agency Shop or “Fair Share” system ensures that everyone covered under a collective bargaining agreement pays dues or agency shop fees for representation related to the contract. Agency shop fees recognize the benefit workers who choose not to join the union receive from the collective bargaining agreement. These fees entitle the worker to certain union benefits without being a member. The National Right to Work Committee, the legal arm of the right-wing National Right to Work Foundation, initially brought the case against the state of Illinois, AFSCME Council 31 and several SEIU locals and councils on behalf of a small group of home health care aides who are paid with state funds to assist individuals with disabilities. The National Right to Work Foundation counts among its supporters the billionaire Koch brothers, who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to inflict their right-wing politics on America at the expense of working people. The Koch brothers and other wealthy National Right to Work Foundation supporters have financially backed the Tea Party, and have poured millions of dollars into initiatives to eliminate unions and pass legislation that protects their industries over workers. The plaintiffs in Harris v. Quinn did not want to join a union and sued the state of Illinois, arguing that requiring them to pay union fees as a stipulation of their employment violates their First Amendment rights against compulsion of political speech. The National Right to Work Committee notes that public sector bargaining falls under the umbrella of political speech as it affects state budgets. But the workers are not required to join a union and any fees are used exclusively for collective bargaining representation, not other union activities such as political action or organizing. While lower courts have ruled against the National Right to Work Committee’s argument, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case despite opposition from the Obama administration. Oral arguments focused on whether the court should uphold several previous court rulings that supported the right of a public employee union to collect a “fairshare fee.” The majority of the current Supreme Court justices traditionally rule along conservative lines and tend to favor corporate interests, and court observers contend that Harris v. Quinn will likely be no exception. If the court rules against the unions in Harris v. Quinn, workers will still be covered by the collective bargaining agreement and receive all the benefits but will not have to pay for them. Public employee unions (including CSEA) will be forced to subsidize workers who contribute no dues or fees. May 2014 The Work Force 5
May_14_WF
To see the actual publication please follow the link above