Interfaith Worker Justice

This is what religion looks like.

Search
Kim Bobo on Harris v Quinn and Home Care Workers

Kim Bobo on Harris v Quinn and Home Care Workers

0 Comment(s) | Posted | by Kim Bobo |

The Supreme Court ruling in Harris v Quinn, disallowing mandatory fair share union fees for some government workers, is a set back for home care workers, home daycare works and others whose wages and standards will only be raised by organizing and collective action. Although Interfaith Worker Justice is grateful that the Court continued to recognize the importance of teachers, police officers and firefighters having the protection of unions and requiring those who benefit from unions to pay fair share fees, this decision continues to devalue the important work provided by home care workers and home daycare workers, mostly women and people of color. By not requiring fair share fees to fund their union when the majority of the workers vote to be represented by a union, the policy institutionalizes freeloading and undermines the institutions' collective power to affect change. Home care and home daycare workers do important work in society, caring for our sick, elderly, children and disabled. They deserve the protection afforded by strong unions — ones in which all share in the costs of representing workers.

Comments

We welcome your comments on the IWJ blog and encourage open discussion about important issues around worker justice and the unemployed. Disagreements are fine, but mutual respect is a must. Profanity, slander or abusive language will not be permitted. IWJ reserves the right to delete comments that violate this spirit of respect.

  1. There are no comments yet.

Leave a Comment