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.
The DHS now siphons union dues from the providers' paychecks and forwards the money into the union bosses' bank accounts. Recent media reports suggest that in exchange for their special government-granted privileges to force Michigan's home-care providers under union monopoly control, the union bosses benefiting from this scheme contribute to various pro-compulsory unionism politicians in Michigan, including Governor Granholm.
The class-action suit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of free political expression and association.
"This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback; union bosses funnel millions of dollars to the campaigns of pro-forced unionism politicians, and the same politicians are forcing home-care providers to pay tens of millions of dollars into union boss coffers," said Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation.
The federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division.
Comments
lawsuit
I want to know how get in on this lawsuit against grnholm for dhs workers?
FORCED UNION AFFILIATION
I have been a member of the UFCW Retail Clerks for thirty years. I work for and do the hiring for a major supermarket chain based in New Jersey. It is required of a new hire to join the union that represents myself as well as the workers in my store. As a part time new hire (we only hire part-time)they are required to pay a 75-$80.00 "initiation fee" taken out after 30 days at $10/$25 a week until it is paid. In addition they are required to pay union dues at a rate of $7.65 per week starting with their fifth paycheck. They are "forced" to make these payments to the union if they want a job. Period. This may differ slightly from the story but my point is...it goes on. Many of these workers are desperate for a job and agree to making the payments to the union just to be employed. There are NO medical benefits, NO decent rate of pay (minimum wage), NO job security, NO real contractual benefits to speak of (many never having seen a contract) and 16-20 hours per week, minus taxes and union dues.
With the laws given to employees by the federal government these days being a union member is a detrement to the individual, when it comes to winning greivances or lawsuits against an employer or the union as the NLRB pretty much always sides with the union. So the employee has NO representation but must pay his dues.
Thats the way it is.
Forced Unionization
I'm not saying what you are describing is right but the big difference with the daycare providers is they are self employed. The do not work for the state. The child care services are provided out of their home and from a business they started. Who is their employer that the union should be negotiating with on their behalf?
Forced Unionism
I look for the same thing to happen to the child care workers in MD that has happened in MI.
This happened to State workers in MD last year with the passage of Fair Share.
There is a bill this year to repeal the Fair Share forced on State workers but I am not holding my breath that it will be repealed. Too much money exchanges hands in the form of political contributions for them to vote in favor of state workers rather than the unions.
DHS forced unionization
My autistic son receives money from the DHS to fund "chore services" provided by his caregivers. DHS one day decided that they could no longer pay the fiscal intermediary that was paymaster for the employees and which was required by the county mental health agency that funded the balance of his care.
DHS suggested they could pay me and that I could then remit the money to the fiscal intermediary. I said OK, and found myself an unwilling member of an un-named union. This was discovered only after I noted a union dues deduction on the paycheck. I immediately protested and was promptly ignored and stonewalled by the local office. They know "nothing"
Technically, I am an employee of my son. I am also his guardian. Tomorrow, as his legal representative, I am requesting a de-certification election from the NLRB. I think this may be a quick way to stop these unbelievable scumbags in their tracks (hopefully)