NYT: Supreme Court Ruling on Union Fees Is a Limited Blow to Labor

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/business/supreme-court-ruling-on-public-workers-and-union-fees.html?emc=edit_au_20140630&nl=afternoonupdate&nlid=1647429&_r=1




The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in the case, with the majority 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Credit Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

By STEVEN GREENHOUSEJUNE 30, 2014

The Supreme Court dealt a limited blow to organized labor on Monday by ruling that some government employees did not have to pay any fees to the unions representing them. But the court declined to strike down a decades-old precedent that required many public sector workers to pay union fees. Writing for the 5-to-4 majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. concluded that there was a category of government employees — a partial public employee — who can opt out of joining a union and not be required to contribute union fees.

Justice Alito wrote that home-care aides who typically work for an ill or disabled person, with Medicaid paying their wages, should be classified as partial public employees and should not be treated the same way as public schoolteachers or police officers who work directly for the government.

The court’s decision, on behalf of the five most conservative justices, was a partial, but not total win, for labor’s critics. And while labor sustained a defeat in this ruling, it did not amount to a crippling loss that unions had feared. If the court had overturned the precedent requiring many government workers to pay union fees, it could have greatly reduced the membership and treasuries of public-employee unions. Several legal experts said Justice Alito evidently had tried unsuccessfully to obtain the needed votes for a broader decision to overturn that precedent. Justice Alito wrote that unions played such a limited role for “partial public employees” like home-care aides that these aides should not be required to pay union fees. Indeed, he wrote that such a requirement would violate their First Amendment rights. He noted that states often set wages for these workers and that unions often did not bargain for them.


The case, Harris v. Quinn, was brought by eight Illinois workers who provided home care to Medicaid recipients. Several plaintiffs were mothers who, helped by Medicaid, were personal assistants to their disabled children and opposed joining the union and paying union fees.

FULL story at link.

[malthaussen]

1. A "limited" blow?

Only two fingers, not the whole fist. "Take that, varlet!"

Sometimes (often), the NYT is just too fucking quaint for words.

-- Mal

[Puzzledtraveller]

3. It goes deeper

I think it's kind of denialism, this by far was the decision that will have a greater impact. Believing We can't lose is a guarantee that we will. My opinion on the Hobby Lobby decisions is that it does not change much, prior to the ACA employers could include or exclude whatever they wanted from the health plans they offered. I know it's a separate issue but I find DU's lack of attention to the labor ruling to be rather odd in comparison to the number of posts about Hobby Lobby. Just my 3c.

[leftstreet]

4. It reflects the broken, beaten, silence of labor

The 'lack of attention' is the lack of organization and unity

[Omaha Steve]

5. I agree

Completely!

[Fred Sanders]

2. People with hair already aflame about this are not going to be happy with cool headed analysis.