Forced unionization of self employed child care workers

[SapereAude]

http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/12/forced-...card-check.html

[aequalsa]

yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients.

Not sure that I feel bad for her. Typical blurring of the lines between public and private.

[~Sophia~]

Not sure that I feel bad for her. Typical blurring of the lines between public and private.

Hmmm... What is the difference between parents receiving public subsidies and then paying for child care (you may not even know that they do) and those subsides going to the child care provider openly with the parents covering the difference? She does not have to accept those kids I guess but other than that is she the one seeking subsidies?

[SapereAude]

Not sure that I feel bad for her. Typical blurring of the lines between public and private.

So if you owned a grocery store would you refuse to let people who got food stamps shop there?

I'm not even sure if that would be legal.... (I know that in many cases refusing to rent to people who receive govt subsidizing is illegal for instance)

I am as against these blurring of lines as anyone else is- but the govt, having forced the blurring of the lines business owners take what business they can get by and large.

Regarding your highlighting of the "agency" I don't think that is to mean that she is part of an agency- they mean the Dept of Health and Human Services which one has no choice but to deal with and be licensed by.

[SapereAude]

Sophia- we were both posting at the same time.

Of the other articles pertaining to this I have taken away from it that it is the children/parents are the ones subsidized.

I think the biggest point to be made (and an answer I do not have) is- is it legal to turn down recipients of govt subsidies?

In many cases it is illegal, but I am not sure how it works in childcare.

[SapereAude]

Aequalsa-

I think this may answer your statement:

" Michigan's independent day-care providers don't work for anybody except the parents who were their customers. Nevertheless, because some of these parents qualified for public subsidies, the Child Care Providers "union" claimed the providers were "public employees." Michigan's Department of Human Services then teamed with Flint-based Mott Community College to sign an "interlocal agreement" in 2006 establishing a separate government agency called the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. This council was directed to recommend good child-care practices—and not coincidentally, to serve as a "public employer." Although the council had almost no staff, no control over the state subsidies and no supervision of the providers' daily activities, it became the shell corporation against which the union could organize. Thus the state created an ersatz employer and an ersatz "bargaining unit" against which what was essentially an ersatz union could organize. "

[gags]

http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/12/forced-...card-check.html

This is what you get in Michigan, where the unions control the state. People are leaving in droves and incomes are dropping like a rock, but the unions and the politicians in their back pockets keep demanding more of the same. Just this week, Democratic Governor Granholm announced her proposed state budget that levies new sales taxes on services and does very little to cut back on government worker pay and benefits. If this continues, I might have to move to Haiti to live in relative freedom and prosperity.

[SapereAude]

In answer to the earlier statement I found this on the NAFCC legal page:

"It is illegal to discriminate against children or parents because of race, color, gender, religion, age, disability, or national origin. Your state or local government may have added additional prohibitions against discriminating based on marital status, sexual orientation, or some other class. Check with your state attorney general's office or state Department of Human Rights for information about state laws. If you provide care for low-income families who are subsidized by the state, your state contract may also say that it's illegal to discriminate against families receiving government assistance. This means you may not be able to refuse to provide care for a parent just because she is receiving subsidized assistance from your state."

So, in this matter it would appear that the govt forces people to accept clients and then uses the status of the clients as an inroad to claim the business owners are govt employees.

A dangerous precedent indeed.

[aequalsa]

Hmmm... What is the difference between parents receiving public subsidies and then paying for child care (you may not even know that they do) and those subsides going to the child care provider openly with the parents covering the difference? She does not have to accept those kids I guess but other than that is she the one seeking subsidies?

Wow...didn't expect much of a response on this one. I think that if you "do business" with the government then any further violation of rights is merely incidental. If I were, for example, running a company that steals land through the use of eminent domain(like wal-mart) to build new stores, what moral stance could I possibly take if they were to "violate my rights" by forcing me to pay some additional tax on those properties that were stolen for my benefit? I would argue none. Feudal systems like this imply obligation to your liege lord...no point whining about it. If she was accepting those subsidies and was advocating against them at the same time, I might feel more charitable.

In individual circumstances, taking the governments money might be the right thing to do...maybe you have no choice, but to walk into such a rights abusing system and be surprised that the government will abuse your rights also is either hypocrisy of ignorance.

[aequalsa]

A dangerous precedent indeed.

I would argue that this is not a precedent since these sorts of government/corporate alliances are seen throughout our system.

[softwareNerd]

At a time when state and local governments across the country are facing dire financial conditions that are exacerbated by unions, Michigan is trying to push unions one more time.

Gags is right about Michigan. One would think that -- of all states -- the people here would understand the destruction that unions have wrought.

Meanwhile in Madison, earning over $150,000 in 2009, a bus driver is the city's highest paid employee (this, while some poor non-union guy is desperate for a a job).

In New Jersey, the governor is trying to push back against the unions:

One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits -- a total of $3.8m on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?

A retired teacher paid $62,000 towards her pension and nothing, yes nothing, for full family medical, dental and vision coverage over her entire career. What will we pay her? $1.4 million in pension benefits and another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime. Is it “fair” for all of us and our children to have to pay for this excess?

Cities are starting to contract out fire-departments, but in some places fire-fighter unions manage to push out even volunteer fire-fighters, by getting various certification requirements enacted.

The hippees who wrote San Francisco's city charter, have something in there that says their muni-drivers must be paid near top wages (for drivers) in the nation. So, they cannot cut back.

And in Utah, unions are protesting potential cuts.

Of course, as such, everyone has the right to contract on certain terms and to negotiate really hard. However, the past has seen the same pattern in public unions as we saw in GM and so on. The public unions demanded above-market benefits and the weak management / government conceded.

The only silver lining is that this marks a chapter in the downward trend for unions. While a few nutty ideas like this MI child-care unionization rule, will expand unions, the overall trend will likely be downward as more people learn from being bitten. In a small ray of hope, even GM has ditched the UAW for a small new plant.

Edited February 12, 2010 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

Unions strike again, this time in Rhode island, where the teacher's union in one district (avg. pay about $75,000) is asking for $90 an hour for additional work the district wanted them to do. This in a high school where 50% of the students are failing all their classes. Anyhow, the district ended up firing all the teachers at that school. [HT: Mish Shedlock]

What we need today is for state governments and federal governments to roll back some of the laws that give unions their power.

[gags]

Unions strike again, this time in Rhode island, where the teacher's union in one district (avg. pay about $75,000) is asking for $90 an hour for additional work the district wanted them to do. This in a high school where 50% of the students are failing all their classes. Anyhow, the district ended up firing all the teachers at that school. [HT: Mish Shedlock]

What we need today is for state governments and federal governments to roll back some of the laws that give unions their power.

Kudos to that school Superintendent in Rhode Island. Reagan had the right idea when he fired the air traffic controllers after refusing to bow to their ridiculous demands. Some union members mistakenly believe that they can't be replaced. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

[softwareNerd]

There's a court case, with the Mackinac Center fighting on behalf of two day-care providers. Hopefully, the judge sides with the day-care providers and deals unions another little blow.

[~Sophia~]

This in a high school where 50% of the students are failing all their classes.

Wow!

[softwareNerd]

Wow!

States and local governments are in a really tight spot. A lot of the "stimulus" money was sent to states to pay teachers and the like; so, people did not realize the depth of the problem. Now, with stimulus drying up, the reality has to be faced and states are wondering how to cut costs or raise taxes. A state senator in Utah is proposing scrapping 12-th grade, or making it optional. He say that making it optional will let lots of kids drop out, saving the state $60 million.