Michigan Childcare Providers File Federal Appeal Seeking Refunds for Providers Forcefully Unionized

Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue federal class-action lawsuit against union officials to recover millions in illegally confiscated dues

Cincinnati, OH (January 18, 2012) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, five Michigan home-based childcare providers have filed a federal appeal to win back forced union dues taken from tens of thousands of providers in the state.

Carrie Schlaud, Diana Orr, Peggy Mashke, and Edward and Nora Gross originally filed a federal class-action suit against then-Governor Jennifer Granholm and a United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) coalition, the Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) union, for designating home childcare providers who accepted state assistance as public employees solely for the purposes of CCPTM "representation" and forcing them to pay union dues.

Under Granholm's direction, the Michigan Department of Human Services created the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council to provide union officials with an entity to negotiate with as the childcare providers' "management." Working with the council, CCPTM operatives staged a union certification election to acquire monopoly bargaining privileges over Michigan childcare providers.

Although only 15 percent of the 40,000 childcare providers receiving state assistance voted in the union certification election, CCPTM union bosses were then granted monopoly lobbying privileges and the power to collect union dues from home-based care providers.

Read the entire release here.

As previously reported on the Freedom@Work blog, union militants are certainly making headlines of late using violent tactics and vandalism to prove their point.

Stunningly, union thugs in Michigan may have taken this to the next level last week when John King, owner of King Electrical Services, was reportedly shot by a union goon spraying the word "scab" on the side of his car in the driveway.

Of course this should surprise no one familiar with the violent legacy of Big Labor, including that of AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka. But for good measure, the Investor's Business Daily (IBD) opined today about union bosses' reliance on violence to get their way:

The attack on King is emblematic of the sad fact that the leading perpetrators of political violence today are U.S. labor unions.

They've grown more violent in their rhetoric as their political power grows and their appeal to workers diminishes.

According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, a right-to-work think tank in Washington, there have been 4,400 incidents of union violence in the last 20 years.

The Teamsters are the leading perpetrators, with 454 incidents. But IBEW, which some suspect in the King incident, is in the top 10, having engaged in 125 incidents.

All told, there have been 11,600 incidents of union violence against workers, management and the public since 1975.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court actually ruled to grant union officials the special privilege to be exempt from federal prosecution for union violence. And shocking these numbers may seem, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research states that for reported incidences of union violence between 1975 and 2000, only three percent of those incidents have led to an arrest and conviction.

The numbers used by IBD also don't account for the fact that most incidents of union violence go unreported (a study of one strike found seven instances of violence for every on reported on in the media) meaning that the already staggering numbers the article cites are just the tip of the iceberg.

Worker Advocate Urges Labor Board to Affirm Right to Object to Subsidizing Union Politics in Languishing Cases

Numerous cases before NLRB lay dormant as workers suffer from union policies designed to discourage objections to paying full union dues

Washington, DC (January 13, 2011) – The National Right to Work Foundation is urging the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to promptly resolve four cases almost identical to one decided last year by the Board as independent-minded workers wait for a resolution.

The Foundation – the nation’s premier advocate on behalf of workers who suffer from the abuses of compulsory unionism – scored a legal victory in August 2010 for workers who were subjected to a burdensome machinist union boss policy requiring employees to annually renew their objection to supporting union politics and other non-bargaining expenses or be converted back to paying full union dues.

The NLRB in Washington, DC determined that the machinist union’s annual objection requirement for workers who choose to refrain from union membership is illegal under Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent upheld in Communications Workers v. Beck (1988).Under Beck, nonmember employees in states without Right to Work laws cannot be compelled to pay for union politics, lobbying, and member-only events.

In a letter penned by Foundation Vice President & Legal Director Raymond LaJeunesse to the NLRB, the Foundation asks that the Board apply their August 2010 decision to four virtually identical cases still pending before the Board.

Read the entire release here.

In the latest issue of the Federalist Society's Engage journal, National Right to Work Foundation attorney William Messenger discusses two lawsuits challenging schemes in Michigan and Illinois that force unionization on personal care providers and child care providers.

Two principal groups of individuals are currently being subjected to state-imposed representation. The first group is “Personal Care Providers,” who provide home personal care to disabled, chronically ill, or elderly individuals whose care is paid for by state self-directed home and community-based service (“HCBS”) programs established under Medicaid. This care generally includes assistance with daily living activities, such as dressing, grooming, and homemaking. Although the details of state HCBS programs vary, their core feature is that participants have discretion to hire, fire, and supervise their Personal Care Providers. The state subsidizes participants’ costs for hiring a Personal Care Provider and provides counseling to facilitate the process.

....

The second group is “Childcare Providers,” who provide home childcare (i.e., daycare) services to parents whose childcare expenses are subsidized by state programs established under the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Childcare Providers include independent contractors who operate daycare businesses from their homes, employees employed in parents’ homes, and relatives willing to watch their grandchildren or other related children in their homes. State programs generally permit participants to hire the private Childcare Provider of their choice, with the state’s role generally limited to paying some or all of their childcare costs.

As Messenger explains in the article, these forced unionism schemes infringe upon the First Amendment rights of compassionate care providers (including grandparents and babysitters) because they are being forced to support political speech and lobbying activities with no vital government interest.

In Michigan, 40,000 child care providers are now forced to pay union dues to joint venture of the United Auto Workers (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions, and the scheme in Illinois forces approximately 20,000 personal care providers to pay fees to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These schemes funnel millions of dollars into union coffers at the expense of the care recipients.

Hopefully, the federal courts will correct the gross injustice done to these tens of thousands of care providers, but these lawsuits have much wider implications. At least 15 other states have similar schemes, and union bosses are on the move to impose their representation on care providers nationwide.

Moreover, if these schemes are upheld, Messenger argues, "any individuals that receive monies from a government program, such as contractors with the government and recipients of Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other government entitlements" could soon find themselves subjected to compulsory union representation.

Read the full article here.

Regular Freedom@Work readers may recall that National Right to Work Foundation attorneys are duking it out in federal court against government union lawyers over a blatant political payback scheme initiated by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.  In order to thank union bosses for their political support, Granholm handed all home-based child-care providers who provide services to state-subsidized low-income families over to the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) unions.

Granholm, following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced-union organizing, directed state officials to grease the skids for union organizers to railroad the child-care providers under union boss control.

A courageous group of child-care workers asked National Right to Work for assistance, as some of them didn't even know they were being forced into union dues-paying ranks until it was too late, and they want nothing to do with the union.  This courageous group of workers filed a federal class-action lawsuit to challenge Granholm's scheme as a violation of their Constitutional rights of free speech, free association, and their right to freely petition government for redress of grievances because, in effect, Governor Granholm is picking the lobbyists of Michigan’s child-care providers.

In mid-July, Foundation attorneys appeared in federal court in Grand Rapids and convinced the judge to proceed with the child-care workers’ case — despite state and union lawyers’ multiple attempts to have the case dismissed.  Wednesday, the Grand Rapids Press called on the federal judge to strike down the forced unionism scheme. As the Grand Rapids Press explains:

Covert unionization violates basic constitutional rights of freedom of association. The formation of the union for Michigan child care providers four years ago was downright sneaky and unfair. A lawsuit in federal court, brought by some affected child care providers, objects to their being shoe-horned into unions — and forced to pay dues — against their will. In that suit, and in one brought in state courts, the child care providers have legitimate grievances. They should prevail.

The forced-unionization travesty occurred primarily because Michigan Democrats wanted to help the UAW and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) pad their membership rolls.

In 2006, the UAW and AFSCME partnered to form a union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan. The union represents and draws dues from people who care for children from low-income families. The new union members belong either to the UAW or AFSCME, depending on the part of the state in which they live.

Whatever attempts were made to inform child care providers of the pending unionization must have been feeble at best. Only 15 percent of the state’s 40,000 dues-paying providers took part in the vote-by-mail certification election that formed the union. Fully 92 percent of those voting said yes to the union. But they hardly constitute a valid majority of all the now-dues-paying members. Hopefully, the federal lawsuit will uncover how this election was allowed to occur.

The low-income clients provided a rationale — though not a legitimate one — for the forced unionization. The argument is that because providers take public money in state subsidies for those clients, they are therefore public employees. Union dues are taken directly from the state subsidies, money that should go toward child care. The UAW and AFSCME receive 1.15 percent of the subsidies, amounting to more than $1 million a year.

To suggest that government grants make providers public employees is an epic stretch. The child care workers are employed by the parents who hire them. At best, they contract with the government for child care services for low-income clients.

...The suit in federal court, filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, challenges the unionization as a violation of the workers’ constitutional right to free association.

That is the crucial point.

Indeed. And UAW and AFSCME union bosses are funneling millions of dollars to the campaigns of pro-forced unionism politicians (such as Governor Granholm), and now those same politicians are forcing Michigan's home-care providers to pay to the tune of $3.7 million into union boss coffers. If Foundation litigators are successful in federal court, the outcome can have a far reaching, national impact in rolling back Big Labor’s state-by-state push of forcing susceptible, unsuspecting home-care providers under union control.

Manny Lopez from the Detroit News comments on the United Autoworker (UAW) union hierarchy's "new" strategy of organizing workers, (i.e. using even more intimidation and harassment to force additional workers into their dues-paying ranks):

Bob King, the new president of the UAW was stumping for democracy yesterday, and you'd think that it would be hard to corrupt such a thing.

But he did. See, democracy to the unions means do it our way, or no way.

King said the UAW will try a new tactic to organize foreign automakers. The membership-declining union is going to draft a set of principles that will bar companies from using derogatory, untruthful or threatening statements to dissuade workers from organizing (as if that was a one-way street).

"Any company that does not agree to the UAW principles is essentially declaring war on freedom of speech and assembly," he said.

Ta-da, the "shame campaign" (my interpretation, not his).

Those that don't sign on will be labeled as being against the First Amendment.

But as Lopez correctly points out, UAW union hypocrites seem the least bit interested in protecting Michigan workers' rights to also not be forced to associate with something they want no part of:

In fact, the UAW's push for freedom could be a good thing if it were universally open to such a thing. How about the UAW abide by its own new interest in openness and allow its members in Michigan and other forced unionism states to also have the freedom to decide whether they want to be in the union?

I'll buy into the UAW's campaign for the First Amendment and the freedom of speech and assembly when it gives its workers in every state that same opportunity.

How about it Mr. King? Let's make Michigan a right-to-work state. Or is the freedom to choose limited to certain circumstances?

And not only would Right to Work protections be great for workers' rights, it would also be good for their wallets.  Now that's a "new" strategy Michigan's families could support.

Today, National Right to Work President Mark Mix was published in the Investor's Business Daily exposing how General Motors (GM) and United Autoworker (UAW) union bosses colluded to use taxpayer dollars to "pay back" the taxpayers for the government bail out it received last year:

...GM leaders and the UAW officials who colluded with them to extract $43 billion out of taxpayers in exchange for arguably worthless stock are now patting themselves on the back for paying back on April 21 the balance of a $6.7 billion loan they took out from taxpayers as part of the 2009 bankruptcy package.

In a weekly radio address to the nation late last month, President Obama suggested that the fact that taxpayers have now recouped 14% of the taxes he diverted into GM coffers on their behalf vindicates his decision to bail out GM and the UAW brass.

But ordinary Americans, with whom the GM and Chrysler bailouts have become overwhelmingly unpopular over the past year, are unlikely to agree. Especially not if they learn that GM was able to "pay back" the loan only because it had not yet spent all of the other $43 billion in taxpayer money it raked in last year.

But, as Mix further notes, the mirage that GM and UAW officials are being fiscally responsible with the taxpayer's money is just part of their plan to ask for even more money from the government:

...[T]he apparent motive of Obama-selected GM CEO Ed Whitacre and UAW officials in repaying the $6.7 billion now is to pave the way for the company to secure a new $10 billion loan from taxpayers at an interest rate of just 5%, two points lower than the previous rate, to pay for the retooling of its plants to meet the government's new, stricter fuel-economy standards.

If the GM/UAW "zombie" corporation obtains the new $10 billion government loan, it will end up even more deeply in hock to taxpayers than before, after having gotten good PR and kudos from the president for having paid off its original loan "in full."

Fortunately, the American people are not as easily bamboozled as President Obama and his cohorts in the GM and UAW union hierarchies seem to think they are.

Mix concludes that "the president's fork-tongued reassurances that all is going well with the bailouts are likely to make Americans angrier and angrier as time goes on" because his special deals and political paybacks to his Big Labor buddies are more than American families can bear, and serves no purpose other than to enrich Big Labor’s coffers.

Right to Work President Mark Mix appeared on The Frank Beckmann Show in Detroit yesterday to discuss the Foundation's legal program and why Michigan would benefit from a Right to Work law. Click here to listen or use the embedded player below:

As always, you can also listen to the Foundation's podcast via iTunes or manually subscribe to the feed.  

The March/April 2010 issue of Foundation Action is now available for download as a PDF. This is the Foundation's official bimonthly publication that provides an excellent overview of hard-hitting legal actions being taken by Foundation attorneys every day to combat forced unionism. This issue's top story chronicles the Foundation's efforts to help Michigan's home-based child-care providers fight back against Governor Jennifer Granholm's corrupt government union political payback scheme.

Also in this issue: 

• Federal Lawsuit Challenges Michigan Scheme to Impose Union on Child-Care Providers
• Union Boss Privacy Victims Case Taken to Supreme Court
• Make a Difference in the Fight Against Compulsory Unionism
• Foundation Unearths Ethical Lapses in Obama Administration
• CWA Bosses Attempt to Rig Employee Vote to Throw Union Out

In addition to to reading Foundation Action online, you can sign up to receive a free subscription by mail here.

Michigan Home-Care Providers File Class-Action Suit Challenging Union Boss/Granholm Unionization Scheme

Right to Work Foundation attorneys challenge Governor and union boss collusion to force home-care providers under union control

Lansing, MI (February 17, 2010) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, a group of Michigan home-based day-care providers have filed a class-action federal lawsuit against government union officials and Governor Granholm's Administration for illegally forcing them to pay union dues.

Carrie Schlaud and Diana Orr of Lapeer County, Edward and Nora Gross of Ingham County, and Peggy Mashke of Ogemaw County -- with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation -- filed the federal suit today on behalf of all of Michigan’s 40,000 home-care providers.

The suit challenges a scheme created by Granholm, Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) officials, and a union front group called "Child Care Providers Together Michigan" (CCPTM) to designate home-care providers who accept state assistance as "state employees" and foist CCPTM union political "representation" on them. CCPTM is an operation run by the United Autoworker (UAW) and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSME) unions.

Under Granholm’s direction, DHS officials created the "Michigan Home Based Child Care Council" to provide the union bosses with an entity to deal with as the "management" of the home child-care providers. Even though only 15 percent of the 40,000 day-care providers voted in the union certification election, the CCPTM union hierarchy was granted monopoly bargaining privileges and political representation of all the home-care providers.

Click here to read the full release.