Supreme Court issues narrow ruling against unions

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Monday that home-care workers in Illinois do not have to pay dues to public employee unions.

The opinion by Justice Samuel Alito was a narrow loss for organized labor. It did not overrule the court's "agency shop" precedent applying to most public employee unions.

The challenge to the mandatory union dues, brought by eight home-care workers in Illinois, represented the biggest labor case to come before the court this term — putting at potential risk the future viability of public employee unions.

For decades, the law has allowed unions to collect dues from all private or public employees they are required to represent. Those who object don't have to contribute to political or lobbying activities, but they must chip in for the unions' efforts in fighting for better wages, benefits and working conditions.

The home-care workers in Harris v. Quinn served individuals with disabilities through the federal-state Medicaid program. They argued they should not have to pay dues for the state's contract with the Service Employees International Union, even though the union is required to represent them and they benefit from its services.

The workers, who were represented in court by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, contended that public employee unions are engaged in lobbying the government, often on issues the workers oppose. That implicates their First Amendment rights because the union speaks for them.

In his ruling for the court, Alito agreed. He cited the "bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support."

The ruling was hailed by attorneys associated with the home-care workers, even though it didn't go as far as they wanted by applying to all state workers.

"This ruling issues a stern warning to public employee unions that when they started unionizing moms and dads taking care of their kids, they went too far," said Paul Kersey, director of labor policy at the Illinois Policy Institute.

The importance of the case to public employee unions wasn't lost on the justices during oral arguments in January. A decision against the union "would radically restructure the way workplaces across this country are run," Justice Elena Kagan said then.

On Monday, Kagan wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues. "Nothing separates ... Illinois's personal assistants from any other public employees," she said. But she applauded the majority's refusal to go further and impose a right-to-work regime for all government employees.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, denounced the ruling. "Home care is one of the fastest-growing industries. Its workers do backbreaking, thankless work, often for low wages.," he said. "By forming a union, these workers are helping to combat income inequality and the rise of low-wage jobs."

Going into Monday, organized labor had been batting .500 at the court this term. The court dismissed a case in December that threatened to strike down labor-management agreements that help unions organize workers in exchange for concessions.

In January, the court unanimously denied 800 Indiana steelworkers compensation for the time it takes to put on and take off protective gear

Follow @richardjwolf on Twitter.