While I am happy that politicians are speaking out against the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, i am very happy one of them is bashing this ruling the Supreme Court made:
http://www.nhregister.com/...
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was critical of the Supreme Court ruling that exempts home care workers from paying union dues, saying it will take the rights of workers backwards, while a national business group hailed it as a major victory.
The high court, in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines Monday ruled that 26,000 home care workers in Illinois do not have to pay dues to public employee unions if they don’t want to be union members.
It was uncertain what impact it would make in Connecticut.
“A stable, qualified home care workforce makes life-changing improvements in the lives of seniors and people with disabilities, who want nothing more than to live independently at home. While we review today’s ruling to determine exactly how it will impact workers in Connecticut, I can guarantee that we will continue to stand with them and keep improving the jobs and fair wages that they have worked for,” Malloy said in a statement.
The governor helped to get home care workers and child care providers organized in Connecticut with an executive order declaring them public employees because they are paid with public funds, an order that was later put into law by the legislature.
There are 7,000 home care workers who belong to Services Employees International Union, Local 1199, in Connecticut, which spokeswoman Jennifer Schneider said had its first contract approved this year.
The ruling is being described as a narrow loss for organized labor because it does not overrule the court’s “agency shop” precedent going back to 1977 for the majority of workers.
Under that ruling, private and public unions can collect dues from members to cover the cost of fighting for better wages, benefits and working conditions. The members cannot be forced to contribute to political or lobbying activities. - New Haven Register, 6/30/14
Malloy wasn't alone in voicing his objection and of course conservatives rubbed the ruling in his face:
http://ctmirror.org/...
It was not immediately clear what concrete effect the ruling will have in Connecticut. Attorney General George Jepsen, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, representatives of the unions and critics of the unionization efforts said they’re still determining what the decision would mean here.
Even so, opponents of the unions cheered the ruling as vindication for workers' freedom while supporters expressed concern about what it could mean for employees and people who want to receive care at home instead of in nursing homes.
Malloy -- whose controversial 2011 executive orders allowed the home care and day care workers to unionize -- issued a statement saying the ruling “takes the rights of American workers backwards.”
Jepsen said in a statement that the court’s ruling was narrow in scope but disappointing, and that his office is reviewing “what effect, if any” it will have on Connecticut home care workers.
The conservative Yankee Institute for Public Policy, meanwhile, issued a statement saying the ruling “effectively invalidates” Malloy’s executive orders and a subsequent state law that gave the workers collective bargaining rights.
“Vindicating the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association, the Supreme Court made two facts crystal clear: Home health care workers work for their elderly or disabled patients -- not the state -- and private homes are not union shops,” Carol Platt Liebau, the group’s president, said. The Yankee Institute backed lawsuits that challenged the executive orders that led to the unions.
Will Monday’s ruling change how the unions handle fees?
SEIU 1199 New England, which represents the Connecticut home care workers, has not yet started collecting fees since its first contract was only recently finalized, spokeswoman Jennifer Schneider said.
Ben Phillips, a spokesman for CSEA-SEIU Local 2001, which represents the day care providers, said it’s too early to say. He said the union is still evaluating whether the ruling affects Connecticut or the day care workers’ union. - The CT Mirror, 6/30/14
Labor leaders had this add:
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/...
Major organizations like the American Federation of Teachers, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO and AFSCME all spoke out against the ruling on their websites, carried by local chapter affiliates.
Sal Luciano, executive director of SEUI Council 4, which covers 35,000 state workers, said Monday’s ruling was a partial victory for public labor unions.
“Anti-union forces failed in their effort to destroy public sector unions when the Supreme Court today narrowed its focus to partial-public home care workers," Luciano said. "The deduction of mandatory agency fees for the partial-public home care workers will not be permitted as a result of today’s ruling,” Luciano said. “Today’s Supreme Court decision only strengthens our resolve to protect and enhance the rights of our members who provide quality public services to Connecticut citizens.” - Norwich Bulletin, 6/30/14
I don't know if I would call it a partial victory considering how this ruling could hurt Connecticut healthcare workers:
http://articles.courant.com/...
"I am deeply concerned about the impact of the decision on working families," said Jepsen.
"Connecticut home care workers came together this year to form a union in order to have a strong voice for good jobs and quality home care," said SEIU 1199 New England President David Pickus. "They've already been able to make important gains in wages, benefits and training. No court decision is going to stop them from continuing to improve their lives and the lives for the people for whom they care."
The idea behind allowing all home health care workers to be charged fees to cover collective bargaining expenses is that even non-union workers "reap the benefits that the union negotiates," said state Rep. Peter Tercyak, a Democrat and co-chair of the legislature's Labor and Public Employees Committee.
Labor leaders and their Democratic supporters argued that home health care workers should treated the same as state employees because the state pays most of their wages.
The first contract negotiated for Connecticut home health care employs, which covers about 7,000 workers, was approved by the General Assembly a few weeks ago.
Malloy, who is now running for a second term, said the law allowing such contracts helps create "a stable, qualified home care work force that makes life-changing improvements in the lives of seniors and people with disabilities who want nothing more than to live independently at home."
One of Malloy's harshest critics is Jonathan Pelto, a liberal former political director for the Connecticut Democratic Party who is running for governor as an independent, and he also blasted the Supreme Court decision. Pelto said the result is that some workers will enjoy the benefits negotiated by unions "to refrain from paying the dues that helped bring about those benefits."
Markley said the court ruling could have a major impact on the viability of home health care worker unions if enough of those types of employees decide not to pay those collective bargaining fees. He said the lack of such funding could potentially make such a union impossible to sustain. - The Courant, 6/30/14
Again, I'm very glad Malloy is speaking out against this and his work to help healthcare workers. I'm also glad for this:
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/...
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy celebrated the 3-year-old paid sick leave law Tuesday with two lawmakers, an advocate, and a handful of union folks at the state Capitol.
The Democrat who is seeking re-election said all of the “horrible” things that opponents said would happen as a result of the law haven’t happened.
“The positive results of this legislation far outweigh the negative impacts,” Malloy said.
However, he admitted that there’s been little academic research on the topic.
The City University of New York did a study earlier this year, which found the Connecticut law had a modest impact on businesses in the state.
The law is limited to businesses with more than 50 employees and it exempts the manufacturing industry and YMCA workers. It also does not apply to any company that already offers vacation or other time off to its employees.
There was another study done in 2013 by the Employment Policies Institute that found of the 83 employers who responded to a question of whether the law was good for their business, 57 of them — or 69 percent — said it was not.
Eric Gjede, assistant counsel with the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, said they were successful in modifying the law slightly this year. They were able to get the state to agree to allow businesses to report the number of employees their business has annually, instead of quarterly.
But even with that, Gjede said the law “simply doesn’t do anything about the cost of complying with paid sick leave.”
And if it was as great as proponents say, “then why has no other state followed Connecticut’s lead in three years?” Gjede said.
Malloy defended the law.
“Connecticut has decided to make it less likely that you will be cared for by an ill person, or served food by an ill person, then that should be taken with pride, not criticism,” he said.
Proponents of the legislation have said that without paid sick leave employees come to work unhealthy in order to earn a paycheck and end up costing employers $160 billion per year in lower productivity levels.
Malloy said employers have told him they thought bad things would happen as a result of the law, but they didn’t. - CT News Junkie, 7/1/14
Malloy is likely to face a tight race against wealthy businessman Tom Foley (R. CT) and he is going to need our help now more than ever. So click here to donate and get involved with his campaign:
http://www.danmalloy2014.com/