Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 676
- 190
The Next Big Supreme Court Case Involving Unions
Harris v. Quinn was argued today. The audio will eventually be posted here >>> Harris v. Quinn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law .
In this case the SEIU said that a mother taking care of her disabled child was a public employee by virtue of the disability money paid for both the child's upkeep and the parent caretaker. The woman was therefore required to pay dues to SEIU as a public employee. What a great bunch the SEIU are huh? I guess unions can't exist to any great extent without forced membership and therein lies the conflict with individual liberty.
The larger implications are that it may force public unions to all become open shop as a person has the 1st Amendment right to associate with whomever they want. We will see what happens.
Harris v. Quinn
Facts of the Case
Pamela J. Harris is a personal care assistant who provides in-home care to disabled participants in the Home Services Program administered by a division of the Illinois Department of Human Services (Disabilities Program). The state pays the wages of assistants who work with participants in either the Disabilities Program or a program run by the Division of Rehabilitation Services (Rehabilitation Program). In 2003, a majority of the Rehabilitation Program personal assistants elected Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois & Indiana as their collective bargaining representative. The union and the state negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that included a “fair share” provision, which required all personal assistants who are not union members to pay a proportionate share of the costs of the collective bargaining process and contract administration. The Disabilities Program assistants rejected union membership in 2009.
In 2010, Harris and other personal assistants from both programs sued Governor Pat Quinn and the unions and claimed that the fair share fees violated their freedom of speech and freedom of association rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appellate court held that the state may require its employees, including personal assistants such as the plaintiffs, to pay fair share fees and further held that the claims of the Disability Program were not ripe for judicial review.
Question
Does the fair share provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the state of Illinois and the union representative violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association of personal assistants who are not members of the union?
Are the claims of the Disability Program plaintiffs ripe for judicial review?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6smPxpzYA5M]Harris v. Quinn: Inside the Case - YouTube[/ame]
Harris v. Quinn was argued today. The audio will eventually be posted here >>> Harris v. Quinn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law .
In this case the SEIU said that a mother taking care of her disabled child was a public employee by virtue of the disability money paid for both the child's upkeep and the parent caretaker. The woman was therefore required to pay dues to SEIU as a public employee. What a great bunch the SEIU are huh? I guess unions can't exist to any great extent without forced membership and therein lies the conflict with individual liberty.
The larger implications are that it may force public unions to all become open shop as a person has the 1st Amendment right to associate with whomever they want. We will see what happens.
Harris v. Quinn
Facts of the Case
Pamela J. Harris is a personal care assistant who provides in-home care to disabled participants in the Home Services Program administered by a division of the Illinois Department of Human Services (Disabilities Program). The state pays the wages of assistants who work with participants in either the Disabilities Program or a program run by the Division of Rehabilitation Services (Rehabilitation Program). In 2003, a majority of the Rehabilitation Program personal assistants elected Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois & Indiana as their collective bargaining representative. The union and the state negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that included a “fair share” provision, which required all personal assistants who are not union members to pay a proportionate share of the costs of the collective bargaining process and contract administration. The Disabilities Program assistants rejected union membership in 2009.
In 2010, Harris and other personal assistants from both programs sued Governor Pat Quinn and the unions and claimed that the fair share fees violated their freedom of speech and freedom of association rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appellate court held that the state may require its employees, including personal assistants such as the plaintiffs, to pay fair share fees and further held that the claims of the Disability Program were not ripe for judicial review.
Question
Does the fair share provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the state of Illinois and the union representative violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association of personal assistants who are not members of the union?
Are the claims of the Disability Program plaintiffs ripe for judicial review?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6smPxpzYA5M]Harris v. Quinn: Inside the Case - YouTube[/ame]
Last edited by a moderator:
