On June 30, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Harris v. Quinn which deals with the issue of workers being required to unionize. I sent a letter to the Attorney General requesting an informal opinion answering several questions about that case’s effects in our state.
- Does the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. Quinn prevent the state from maintaining a union security provision in its collective bargaining agreement with any union representing individual providers?
- In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Quinn, what must an individual provider do in order to be viewed by the state as a nonmember of Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW for the purposes of RCW 41.56.113?
- What liability attaches to the state if state agencies deduct union dues or other fees from non-member individual providers without their express, written permission?
Read more about this issue here, courtesy of the Washington Policy Center.