Harris v. Quinn: Stuart Buttrick Expects Union Fee Collections to Slow

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Harris v. Quinn, holding that the First Amendment does not permit a state to compel public employees to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union they do not wish to join or support. At issue was a provision under Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act (PLRA) that requires members of a bargaining unit who do not wish to join the union to pay a fee to the union. Law360 asked several of the nation's top labor and employment attorneys, including Faegre Baker Daniels' Stuart Buttrick, what the fallout will be from Harris v. Quinn.

"The Supreme Court's decision does not directly impact private sector labor law — its application is limited to the issue of mandatory union fees for workers who receive indirect state subsidies," Buttrick said. "There has been an effort over the last several years for organized labor, and primarily the Service Employee International Union, to organize home-based health care and child care workers who receive indirect state subsidies by having them classified as state employees for purposes of unionization — but they are not state employees for any other purpose. The end result is that labor has been able to obtain a significant amount of fees, and members, from these relationships — which it can use to further its efforts to organize private sector employers or to enhance its political lobby. Today's decision will slow, if not eventually stop, this cash cow as the impacted workers can now decide whether they want to become union members and/or pay union-related fees," Buttrick said.