Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
The Associated Press
St. Paul, Minn.

Opponents of Minnesota union drives hail ruling

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

Opponents of a drive to unionize home-based day care and health workers in Minnesota are cheering a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Illinois case.

The high court ruled that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover the union's costs of collective bargaining. That legal fight has similarities to litigation pending in federal court over a Minnesota union organizing effort.

Two unions are collecting signatures as they attempt to organize operators of home-based day cares and personal care attendants who receive state subsidies. The unions would bargain with the state over reimbursement rates, training and working conditions.

They wouldn't be considered full-fledged state employees. That was a key distinction in the Supreme Court's ruling against compulsory dues.