Clipsheet Harris V. Quinn July 3, 2014

by

High Court’s Labor Ruling Likely to Weaken Union Clout in More States

NewsMax Online, July 1, 2014

Messenger pointed out that two specific groups that were the targets of such “unionization schemes” are now protected.

“The first group are personal-care providers,” he told Newsmax, “who provide home personal care to disabled, chronically ill, or elderly individuals whose care is paid for by state self-directed home- and community-based service [HCBS] programs under Medicaid.”

“The second group are childcare providers, who provide home child [day-care] services to parents whose childcare expenses are subsidized by state programs established under the federal Child Care and Development Fund [CCDF].”

Union Foes See Blood in the Water After Supreme Court Ruling

US News and World Report Online, June 30, 2014

“Head-on challenges to forced union dues are going to be coming,” Semmens tells U.S. News. “If we have workers who want to take that fight on we’re willing to provide free legal aid. It definitely seems like this court is willing to hear that case.”

Editorial: Supreme Court makes another First Amendment stand

Charleston Daily Mail Online, July 2, 2013

“We applaud these homecare providers’ effort to convince the Supreme Court to strike down this constitutionally-dubious scheme, thus freeing thousands of homecare providers from unwanted union control,” the Foundation said Monday.

Court: Public Union Can’t Make Nonmembers Pay Fees

ABC News Online, June 30, 2014

Harris issued a statement through the National Right to Work Foundation praising the decision.

“Families in Illinois can relax knowing their homes are safe from being a union workplace and there will be no third party intruding into the care we provide our disabled sons and daughters,” Harris said.

Supreme Court ruling on home healthcare workers a setback for unions

Los Angeles Times Online, June 30, 2014

“I think the opinion certainly makes it clear that Abood is on shaky foundations,” said William Messenger, the National Right to Work lawyer who won the case Monday. “The next challenge to Abood that comes up [to the Supreme Court] has a decent chance of success.”

Harris v. Quinn ruling: Unions hit, but not fatally, by SCOTUS

Politico Online, June 30, 2014

“In the short run, the decision is fairly limited,” said Mark Neuberger, an attorney focusing in labor law at the firm Foley & Lardner. “However, what should have every union officer grabbing for a bottle of antacids is the thought process revealed by the majority of the justices in the decision today. They view compulsory union membership as a restraint of free speech.”

Supreme Court deals setback to unions in Illinois case

Chicago Tribune Online, June 30, 2014

The National Right to Work Foundation lauded the ruling.

“We applaud these home-care providers’ effort to convince the Supreme Court to strike down this constitutionally dubious scheme, thus freeing thousands of home-care providers from unwanted union control,” the group’s president, Mark Mix, said in a statement.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules ‘Forced Unionization’ of Home Health Care Family Members Unconstitutional

Mystateline.com, June 30, 2014

06/30/2014 10:06 AM

“This scheme, which forced parents and other relatives taking care of persons with disabilities into union political association was a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear,” stated Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation in a news release. “We applaud these homecare providers’ effort to convince the Supreme Court to strike down this constitutionally-dubious scheme, thus freeing thousands of homecare providers from unwanted union control.”

U.S. top court lets some public employees avoid union dues

Reuters.com, June 30, 2014

In-home care givers collectively paid more than $3.6 million annually to the union, according to court records.

Mandatory Union Fees Curbed by Court in Blow to Labor

Bloomberg News Online, June 30, 2014

“This scheme, which forced parents and other relatives taking care of persons with disabilities into union political association, was a slap in the face of fundamental principles we hold dear,” said Mark Mix, president of the right-to-work group.

High court favors caregivers in Harris v. Quinn, but refrains from banning union-only contracts in public sector

Washington Examiner Online, July 1, 2014

“We applaud these home care providers’ effort to convince the Supreme Court to strike down this constitutionally-dubious scheme, thus freeing thousands of home care providers from unwanted union control,” said NRTW President Mark Mix.

Public-Sector Unions Survive Supreme Court Review, Barely

Forbes Online, June 30, 2014

The decision by Justice Samuel Alito notes the First Amendment challenges embedded in public-sector unionization, where workers are forced to pay dues to an organization that may engage in political activity they oppose, such as advocating government spending that increases their taxes. That makes public-sector unions different from their private counterparts, he said.

‘Harris’ Ruling Could Cost AFSCME, SEIU Tens of Millions

Washington Free Beacon, June 30, 2014

The Supreme Court’s decision has laid the foundation to challenge those state policies, according to Patrick Semmens, spokesman for the National Right to Work Committee, which represented Harris in the suit.

“This will help us in existing challenges we have going to end these types of schemes in other states,” he said.

Court chips away at union power

The Hill Online, June 30, 2014

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which helped bring the legal challenge, trumpeted the ruling and said home care workers had “refused to be bullied” by union bosses.

Unions Fear High Court’s Ruling Opens Door To More Trouble

NPR.org, July 2, 2014

In a two years ago, the Supreme Court “sort of cracked the door open a little bit to reconsidering the constitutionality of forced dues for public sector workers,” says Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which argued the Harris case.

Here Are 4 Lawsuits That Could Inflict More Damage on Unions After Harris v. Quinn

Three are Foundation Lawsuits

Mother Jones Online, July 1, 2014

If you’re looking for a common thread between these challenges, it’s the National Right-to-Work Legal Foundation, the driving force behind many anti-union suits around the country. The foundation represented the plaintiffs in Harris v. Quinn, and it has provided legal help in [three] of the following cases.

Montana union leaders see no impact from Supreme Court decision

Missoulian Online, July 1, 2014

However, the Los Angeles Times said the decision “practically invites the National Right to Work Foundation, which brought the case, to bring additional challenges that could apply the same legal reasoning to millions of other workers.”

One Step Closer to Eliminating Power Hungry Unions

Huffingtonpost.com, July 1, 2014

The Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. Quinn is a great victory, but it’s just the beginning. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, welcomed the ruling, saying, “We applaud these homecare providers’ effort to convince the Supreme Court to strike down this constitutionally-dubious scheme, thus freeing thousands of homecare providers from unwanted union control.”

The future belongs to the states who become ‘Right to Work states,’ where unions have no power.

PageLines