The U.S. Supreme Court will hand down a decision by the end of this month that could have significant and lasting effects on organized labor in this country.

In January, when the high court heard oral arguments in the Harris v Quinn case, the justices clearly were considering a ruling that would, in effect, give public employees the freedom to choose whether to pay dues or fees to a union without being worried about being fired.

The case before the court involves Pamela Harris and seven other Illinois personal care providers (home-based caregivers), who challenged a forced unionization that was basically the equivalent of Michigan's dues skim, which resulted in the SEIU taking more than $34 million from the elderly and disabled in Michigan.

During oral arguments in the Harris case, Supreme Court justices repeatedly steered the discussion to the idea of reversing the 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. That ruling established that a union shop, which is legal in the private sector, was also legal in the public sector.

Reversal of the Abood ruling would be expected to have far-reaching ramifications throughout the nation.

Few news stories have addressed the possible outcomes of the case, and even some lawmakers with legal backgrounds who are assigned to legislative judiciary committees are unfamiliar with the intricacies of the case.

"I honestly haven't heard a thing about it," said Rep. Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. "That being the case, I obviously haven't looked at it or given it any thought. I'm not even sure whether I'd consider that something that should be determined at the federal level or the state level. If that (reversing Abood) were the Court's ruling it wouldn't be likely to have the impact on Michigan and other right-to-work states that it would have on non-right-to-work states."

House Speaker Pro-tem, Rep. John Walsh, R-Livonia, who chaired the House Judiciary Committee in a previous term, said he also was unaware of the case. Rep. Walsh said he preferred to have a chance to look Harris v. Quinn over before commenting further.

Sen. Steve Bieda, D-Warren, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he has heard about Harris v. Quinn.

"Actually, I do remember hearing about it, but it was in an informal conversation," Sen. Bieda said. "Subsequently I never saw anything about it in the press. I can't say that I've followed it and it doesn't appear that the news media has either. The little bit I did hear about it was that some right-wing groups were funding the case and it was a potential time bomb.

"You would think this would be a pretty high profile case," Sen. Bieda continued. "I always considered Abood to be more or less a settled issue. So if the Supreme Court were to overturn it, that would be a pretty major decision and come as quite a surprise to many. I sure would have thought it would have generated more interest. However, I've noticed other potentially big court cases don't get much news coverage either. But, you know, in the end the court might issue a ruling that comes down somewhere in the middle and doesn't go so far as to fully overturn Abood."

Home-based caregivers have been subjected to forced unionization schemes in Michigan, Illinois and several other states. In Michigan, this happened during the administration of former Gov. Jennifer Granholm and involved a dummy employer and a mail-in election. In Illinois, it was done by executive order and the forced unionization was covered by the news media as it took place. With the exception of Michigan Capitol Confidential covering the dues skim after it was in place, most news outlets in Michigan ignored the story.

Attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation are representing Harris and the other providers. The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, along with The Cato Institute and the National Federation of Independent Business filed an amicus brief in the case.

~~~~~

See also:

U.S. Supreme Court Discusses Right-To-Work For All Public Employees

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Loo

k At Forced Unionization

Michigan Capitol Confidential of the SEIU Dues Skim

Legal Foundation Seeks Return Of 'Dues Skim' Money

SEIU Election Battle Hinges On Home-Based Caregivers

Voters Reject Forced Unionization Scheme

Infighting At The SEIU

How the Forced Unionization of Day Care and Home Health Care Providers Took Place

Parents Forced to Pay Union Dues, Lawmaker Rakes In Health Care Money

"Good intentions don’t trump the laws of economics."

That was the message from James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation, at the start of a Mackinac Center for Public Policy Issues & Ideas forum Tuesday in Lansing.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill at the end of May that increased the state's minimum wage up to $9.25 per hour by 2018. It garnered GOP support and a push from top GOP officials mostly to avoid a ballot proposal that would have raised the minimum wage up to $10.10 and eliminated the tipped worker exception.

The economic "law of demand" states that as the price of something rises, less of it is demanded. Sherk said many of the left agree with this on most issues.

"That's why unions support trade barriers," Sherk said. "Because they agree that making goods coming from other countries more expensive incentivizes Americans to buy more products made in the United States. [But] they ignore this law when it comes to the minimum wage."

Sherk said that the value of someone's labor is determined by what others are willing to pay for it. Competition in the market forces businesses to pay the perceived value of their workers. If they pay more than the true value, they are harmed, while paying less encourages employees to jump ship to a different company.

"That's why 97 percent of American workers make more than the minimum wage," Sherk said. "It is not because businesses are just simply being generous."

Sherk said the most harm from the policy affects low-skilled workers and society in the long term.

"The primary value of the minimum wage job is not the pay today, but the skills it generates for the future," he said.

Sherk asked the room who has worked a job for minimum wage or less and then who has worked an unpaid internship. The vast majority raised their hands. He noted that this is typical since the majority of Americans started out making around the minimum wage.

"What happens when you raise the minimum wage is you saw off the bottom rung that lets low-skill employees enter the workforce,” he said.

To minimize the harm from Michigan's minimum wage increase, Sherk proposed three things:

1. Expand the teenage opt-out. Lowering the requirement for younger workers means employers would have an incentive to keep those entry-level jobs for teenagers.
2. Make it minimum compensation. When the mandated wage goes up, companies eliminate other benefits, which is one-third of worker compensation nationwide.
3. Use the most accurate inflation adjuster. The Michigan legislation adjusts to inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which most economists believe overstates inflation. The state should use the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) index, which is more accurate.

At the end of the day, Sherk said, increasing the minimum wage is a poor way to help poor people.

"The average household income of a minimum wage worker is $55,000," he said. "That's because they are usually the second or third income earners."

~~~~~

Video Replay:

See also:

More People On Food Stamps After Past Minimum Wage Increases

Who Is Behind the Minimum Wage Increase Drive?

Bars, Restaurants Could See 280 Percent Increase In Costs With Minimum Wage Ballot Proposal

Schauer, Other Michigan Dems Call For Higher Minimum Wage While Paying Their Interns Nothing

Debate Du Jour: Minimum Wage Takes Center Stage