Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Supreme Court: Some public workers can opt out of union fees
First Published Jun 30 2014 08:59 pm • Last Updated Jun 30 2014 08:59 pm

The Supreme Court dealt a limited blow to labor unions Monday by ruling that some government employees did not have to pay any fees to the labor organizations representing them. But the court declined to strike down a decades-old precedent that required many public-sector workers to pay union fees.

Writing the majority 5-4 opinion, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that there was a category of government employee — a partial public employee — who can opt out of joining a union and not be required to contribute dues to that labor group.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

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-school teachers or police officers who work directly for the government.

The court’s decision was a partial, but not total win, for labor’s critics. And while labor did sustain 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 of the original plaintiffs were mothers who, helped by Medicaid, were personal home-care assistants to their disabled children and opposed joining the union and paying any union fees.

Alito wrote that unions play 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 the aides’ First Amendment rights. He noted that states often set the wage levels for these workers and that unions often do not bargain collectively for them.

The case was brought by eight Illinois workers who provided home health care to Medicaid recipients. They asked the court to overrule a 1977 decision that declared that government employees can be required to pay fees to unions for representing them and administering their contracts even if they disagree with the union’s positions. The majority declined to overrule that foundational decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, although Alito voiced strong discomfort with it.

Objecting to the so-called agency fees that the Abood ruling said teachers must pay, Alito wrote in Monday’s majority opinion, "Agency-fee provisions unquestionably impose a heavy burden on the First Amendment interests of objecting employees."




Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.