I think that there is no immediate effect. Harris holds that state home carers can’t be forced to pay union fees, in substantial part, because they are not full-time state employees. It leaves intact the Court’s prior decision, Abood, which reached the opposite result for full state employees. Thus, assuming that the teachers in question are employed by the state, no immediate effect. [SCOTUSBLOG]
A VERY SPECIAL type of employee, “partial public employees,” home health workers, cannot be compelled by the government to contribute to unions, so says the Supreme Court in its ruling today. This is negative for the unions, but not nearly as bad as it could have been.
The justices did not decide the broader question, according to analysis by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBLOG, which is whether unions can collect dues from people who do not want to be affiliated with a union, because it abridges their First Amendment rights. Some news analysts are jumping to this conclusion, which is incorrect.