Portside

A decision in favour of Pamela Harris in the Harris v. Quinn case before the U.S. Supreme Court would seriously impact the quality of care provided to tens of thousands of seniors and people with disabilities who use state-supported home care services. It would do this by ruling the collective agreement covering more than 27,000 workers unconstitutional. More broadly, a ruling that the current system is unconstitutional threatens the future of collective bargaining.

Forming a union is one of the only ways that workers in home-care jobs have been able to have a voice and a pathway out of poverty. Limiting the ability of a state to collaborate directly with home care workers on common sense solutions to meet their own growing workforce needs--which could be the outcome of a right-wing lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court-- sets a terrible precedent for both workers and consumers.

A Supreme Court case to be heard this month could deal another body blow to the embattled U.S. labor movement. The case, Harris v. Quinn, offers the court’s conservative majority a chance to make so-called right to work the law of the land for millions of public sector workers.