The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of
Harris v. Quinn impacts Massachusetts
laws governing home care and home day care workers and owners.
The case involved an Illinois mom who took care of her ill
minor child in her home. Because the child received public subsidies for
medical bills, Illinois law forced Ms. Harris to pay dues to a public-employee
union which ostensibly lobbied to increase public funding. The Supreme Court
concluded that, unlike full- fledged public employees, quasi-public employees
or private workers like Ms. Harris, who work for their clients or customers
first and not for the state, cannot be forced to join the union.
Massachusetts has similar statutory schemes that require
home care workers and home day care workers and owners to pay union dues or
agency fees to public employee unions. But after Harris, the entrepreneurs who run a day care center in their home
with one or two subsidized children can no longer be treated like public
employees. Any dues or agency fees that they pay will be totally voluntary. The
era of forced unionization based merely on government subsidy of customers or
clients is over.
Forcing workers of any kind to join a union is fundamentally
unfair under any circumstance. It is absolutely chilling that state government
could reclassify private sector workers – and even owners of small child care
businesses operating out of their own homes — as government workers simply
because government money is indirectly involved. While these home-based child
care providers are self-employed entrepreneurs with the power to select and
hire and dismiss employees, to pay their wages, and direct their conduct,
Massachusetts law, like Illinois, creates an odd collective bargaining
arrangement with the state.
Massachusetts and other state governments provide billions
in subsidies to millions of residents under hundreds of programs. The states
use the money to purchase goods and services from private sector businesses of
every variety. These are private transactions between private citizens and
private sector businesses. Before Harris,
the states could conceivably coerce other types of private businesses and
workers to join unions under the same pretense that their customers get their
money from the government.
And we were heading down that path. First, home health care
providers were unionized and then home-based day care. Institutional day care
centers were definitely on union legislators’ radar screens. Perhaps Mom and
Pop open shop grocery stores with their food stamp subsidies were next.
The good news is that home care providers will now be able
to accept clients without fear of having to buy union protection in the form of
dues or agency fees. Similarly, home-based day care centers will now be able to
accept subsidized children without diverting a portion of workers’ pay to the
union. And most importantly, low income parents will have a wider choice of day
care options as more home-based facilities will be able to accept their
children. And higher costs caused by additional union expenses can be
avoided.
Nothing in this ruling prohibits labor unions from forming
and trying to attract workers, but it is hard for unions to attract members
voluntarily. Even in Massachusetts, only a small fraction of the private sector
workforce is unionized. The laws that the Harris
case addressed were a sneaky way for certain labor unions, through their
political allies, to expand their membership rolls. Fortunately those forced
unionization laws are now considered a violation of the First Amendment free
speech rights of private citizens and small business owners.
The State of the MA Economy
The MA economy has finally recovered to the level of jobs
available in 2001. But since the more recent jobs high point in April of 2008,
the state’s economy has changed dramatically. Most people may know or sense
that the number of manufacturing jobs has declined from 290,000 to 250,000. But
did you know that other large sectors like construction, wholesale trade, and
financial activities are down 9%, 8%, and 7% respectively, accounting for more
than 35,000 lost jobs. Most of these well-paying jobs will not return as job
loss is attributable to efficiencies from technology and consumer behavior.
On the other hand, employment in professional and business services,
leisure and hospitality, and education and health services account for nearly
150,000 new jobs in the Commonwealth since 2008. The number of jobs in the
education and hospitality sector has grown 13% and leisure and hospitality jobs
have grown 10% in the last six years.
The changing economy has social and political implications
for the state in the years ahead.
