Opponents of home care workers union take challenge to federal appeals court

Home health care workers and their clients rally outside the federal courthouse in St. Paul in support of unionization. The union faced another challenge in the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals.

Efforts to dismantle a state law that allowed 27,000 Minnesota home health care workers to unionize continued in federal appeals court Wednesday, while active members say they're already reaping the benefits of collective bargaining and refuse to back down.

Personal care attendants and their clients packed the courtrooms as a pair of three-judge panels from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard dual challenges to the law, the most recent of a yearslong battle that has stretched from the State Capitol to the courtroom.

Union backers called the continued legal challenge the result of "a small group of extremists," saying that no one is forced to pay union dues and that the new contract has secured new benefits for workers, including a wage floor of $10.75 per hour, paid time off, a new grievance process and a training program.

"Despite their efforts, we are confident the judges will side with us against these baseless attacks trying to take away our union," said Cortney Phillips, a personal care attendant to two disabled sons who pushed for collective bargaining.

The Legislature in 2013 passed a law allowing home health care workers to vote whether to unionize, following one of the most sweeping union expansion efforts in Minnesota history.

Members voted in 2014 to join the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and this year reached a contract with the state, which provides their funding. But the movement has long seen resistance from "right-to-work" groups, who say that although members are not forced to pay dues for the union, they're still essentially forced to join by association and that the union's involvement is simply a money-grab of state money for personal care attendants, or PCAs.

"The state statute passed here is really designed to provide cash flow for the union without provision of any real services for the PCAs." said Doug Seaton, an attorney for several plaintiffs taking on the law.

Scott Kronland, an attorney for the unionized workers, told the panel that the union in no way influences its members' actions, rather than serving as a lobbying body at the Legislature.

"People would reasonably believe that not every individual agrees with the union," Kronland said. "They can speak and say whatever they want, and when the union's contract goes to the Legislature, they can speak against it."

"The fact that individual providers can speak against the SEIU doesn't mean they're not associated with them," said William Messenger, an attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Foundation.

Kris Greene, one of the plaintiffs challenging the state law, who cares for her 23-year-old daughter, Meridie, full time, said being unionized does not affect the quality of care she provides.

"I'm just a mother trying to take care of her daughter," said Greene, of Lakeville. "I'm very thankful for what the state has given me to take care of her and I don't feel that the union needs to come in and represent me."

But Debra Howze, a three-year home care worker from north Minneapolis, said she takes the legal challenge personally, as a woman of color. She's frustrated with outside organizations trying to dismantle what she and her colleagues worked hard for.

"What business is it of theirs to come into our state and take away the rights of our union that we have already formed?" she said.

The Appeals Court ruling is likely months away. A similar right-to-work challenge by day care providers was thrown out because they haven't yet voted on whether to unionize.

Abby Simons • 612-673-4921

Below: Kris Greene and daughter Meridie