Justices rule home health care aides can't be forced to pay union dues

Jul 1 2014

The high court's ruling will make it more difficult for unions in some states to continue organizing the aides, a rapidly growing segment of the workforce.

The New York Times: Ruling Against Union Fees Contains Damage To Labor
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. ... 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 (Greenhouse, 6/30).

The Wall Street Journal: Justices Rule Certain Workers Can't Be Forced To Pay Union Fees
Home-based care workers in Illinois aren't full-fledged public employees so they can't be forced to pay dues to a union they don't want to join, a divided Supreme Court said. But the limited ruling stopped short of barring organized labor from collecting fees from government workers who object to union representation (Kendall and Trottman, 6/30). 

The Washington Post: Supreme Court: Home Health-Care Workers Can't Be Required To Pay Union Fee
Thousands of home health-care workers cannot be forced to pay union fees if they are not in a union, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, dealing a defeat to organized labor and foreshadowing a potentially far more serious blow to come. ... The case had prompted widespread concern among public-sector unions because Illinois had deemed the aides, who are paid by the state, to be public employees. But the court said the aides are only quasi-public because their real employers are their patients (Markon and Barnes, 6/30). 

Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court Ruling On Home Healthcare Workers A Setback For Unions
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the court said the home healthcare assistants, some of whom care for their own loved ones, had a constitutional right not to support a union they opposed. The decision will make it more difficult in some states for unions to continue organizing home healthcare assistants, a rapidly growing segment of the workforce that is expected to double in the next decade thanks to the aging U.S. population (Phelps and Savage, 6/30). 

The CT Mirror: Connecticut Closely Scrutinizing Supreme Court's Home Care Union Ruling
In a decision that could have implications for two controversial Connecticut unions, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of Illinois home care workers who objected to paying fees to a union representing them. The case had been closely watched by people in Connecticut involved in unions that represent home care workers and day care providers -- units formed under circumstances similar to those in Illinois. The Connecticut unions represent workers who are paid with funds from state programs. But the workers are considered to be employed by the people they serve -- people with disabilities, seniors or parents of children in day care (Becker, 6/30).