The Supreme Court Harris v Quinn ruling does not apply to all unions. The
Supreme Court decision judged the plaintiffs in the case to be personal
assistants that are quite different from "full-fledged public employees"
and therefore Abood v Detroit Board of Education which enables unions to
collect fair share fees from non-members for expenses germane to
collective bargaining did not apply. The Court found that the personal
assistants were not eligible for the same types of benefits as other
public employees such as state employee benefit plans, full workers
compensation, and indemnification from liability. As a result, personal
assistants do not resemble full-fledged public employees.
There is more to the Court's ruling, but it differentiates between the
role of full public employees and the personal assistants that brought the
issue to the Supreme Court.
Finally, the comment from AFT President Randi Weingarten summarizes the
decision in her first statement, 'Today's Harris v Quinn decision upholds
the right of public sector unions to represent public employees, including
their right to collectively bargain, but the Supreme Court refused to
extend the right to collect fair share fees for that purpose from Illinois
home healthcare workers who are not members.
