Bench Memos

Re: Tomorrow’s Ruling in Harris v. Quinn

A brief follow-up to my post on the broader First Amendment issue that Harris v. Quinn presents:

As this excellent backgrounder by Andrew M. Grossman nicely explains, the dispute in Harris arises from an aggressive effort by Illinois officials and their public-sector union allies to classify so-called “home-care” and “day-care” workers as state employees and to force them to be nominally represented by a union. To illustrate what this means: The petitioner, Pamela Harris, is the primary caregiver for her disabled adult son, and she receives a stipend from the state. By forcing her to be represented by a union for collective bargaining—an apparently empty benefit—the state is able to extract funds from her to benefit the union and its political agenda.

Grossman explains that “[m]ore than a dozen states have implemented schemes like Illinois’s,” with the effect of adding hundreds of thousands of home-based workers to the ranks of those coerced to subsidize public-sector unions.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

The Joys of Heterogeneity

The temporary shutdown of parts of the federal government is a good argument for the permanent shutdown of parts of the federal government. When one of his colleagues voiced frustration with the slow pace of conservative reform in the 1990s, Newt Gingrich replied, “Rome wasn’t burned in a day.” That’s ... Read More