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.

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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.