Unions had a big victory before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 29 when a ruling about whether individuals have the right to opt out of paying union dues ended in a 4-4 tie.
 
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association dealt with public sector unions. However, it has a far-reaching effect on private duty agencies. That’s because a ruling against the union would have weakened unions throughout the country by decreasing their revenue streams, home care experts say.
 
National Nurses United had released statements contending that a win for Fredrichs would threaten nursing working conditions and pose a safety threat for the population.
 
With a 4-4 tie, the lower court ruling was upheld. That ruling had been in favor of the union upholding compulsory union dues.
The Supreme Court normally has nine judges, but conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died Feb. 13. President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland on March 16 to fill the void. But at the moment, home care attorneys say, it appears likely Congress will block Garland from replacing Scalia — at least until after the presidential election.
 
Prior to Scalia’s death, home care attorney Robert Markette of Indianapolis-based Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman expected the union to lose the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case. The high court had made other recent decisions pushing back against unions.
In Friedrichs, a group of teachers challenged California law requiring them to make payments to the California Teachers Association, regardless of whether they oppose positions the teachers association takes in collective bargaining. The teachers argued that requiring public employees to financially subsidize public sector unions, even if their speech and activities are contrary to a teacher’s on-the-job interests, imposes a “significant impingement” on their First Amendment Rights.
 
California law requires public employees who choose not to join unions to pay a “fair share service fee” typically equivalent to members’ dues, according to the New York Times. The fees are intended to pay for collective bargaining activities including the cost of lobbying. About 20 other states have similar laws, the New York Times reports.