Posted on 03/03/2010 8:40:07 AM PST by Kaslin
They operate under names like Granny’s Junction. Inside, among cubbies for winter coats, boxes of Legos and kitchen tables surrounded by booster seats, they offer a lifeline to millions of working mothers and fathers.
The nation’s home-based child care providers represent millions of single business owners –women, mostly – whose entrepreneurial spirit and operating ingenuity are surpassed only by their willingness to clean the noses and backsides of other people’s children.
In Michigan, roughly 40,000 of the state's 70,000 day care owners were perhaps too busy changing diapers, reading stories and making lunches to notice a random piece of mail in which they were invited to declare themselves unionized state employees. (See www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/12223.)
Obviously, a private business owner is not an employee of the government. But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) couldn’t resist the lure of so many potential dues-paying members.
So AFSCME hatched a grand scheme. Suppose you declare that any child care provider whose clients receive state subsidies for daycare are considered employees of the state? You’d instantly have 40,000 new state employees to add to the rolls of union membership.
Follow the union’s logic: Say you own and operate Granny’s Junction Daycare. A few of your clients attend job-retraining programs that qualify them for subsidized child care benefits. Along with the money that is paid directly to you from these clients, you receive a check each month from the state to pay some of their expenses.
This makes you… wait for it… a State employee. “Close enough for government work” never rang so true.
To accomplish this surreptitious unionization effort, Michigan’s Department of Human Services (DHS) formed an agency called the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council (MHBCCC). This agency does exactly nothing. In fact, they aren’t even funded by the Michigan Legislature. But MHBCCC is an entity against which a union may organize.
Enter AFSCME’s new “faux” union, Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) .The new union sends election ballots to those 40,000 potential members (formerly known as small business owners), encouraging them to unionize. About 6,000 ballots are returned. Interestingly, more than 5,000 favor joining the union, while only 475 oppose it. The other 34,000 threw the thing away, assuming they couldn’t possibly need a union – or be eligible to join one – since they own and operate private businesses.
But wouldn’t you know, those business owners now are paying “union dues,” assessed at 1.15 percent of their monthly subsidies. The annual total withheld and diverted directly to CCPTM (read: AFSCME): $3.7 million. Dollars.
Meanwhile, the “employer” doesn’t provide healthcare benefits, training, insurance, a cup of coffee, a company picnic or any other conceivable attribute of employment, least of all, a full-time paycheck. And the union doesn’t negotiate a contract. It simply lobbies the state to set more preferable subsidy rates.
Suffice to say, the independent child care providers could have hired a lobbyist for a lot less than $3.7 million per year.
Three women are suing the DHS for diverting their child care payments as “union dues,” since they say, “the DHS does not have the constitutional authority to reclassify home-based day care providers, who are business owners and independent contractors, as government employees.”
Their attorney, Patrick Wright of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation (www.mackinac.org), says the implications of the case are broad. “If unions can declare private business owners, such as child care providers, as public employees, simply because they receive secondary payments in the form of subsidies, who is next?”
And what other ramifications might there be? Suppose Granny’s Junction is a Christian daycare center, where children learn about Jesus while playing in Granny’s sandbox? If she’s now a state employee, is she barred from promoting a religious preference, even if her beliefs are a reason her clients chose her for child care services?
Thank you, AFSCME, for opening a door the ACLU can walk through.
There’s a reason why unions are on the decline. Most workers don’t need one and they don’t want one. Least of all a fake union that takes money from honest business owners.
“
Unions might be on the decline, but more government workers have joined unions
“
If I understand correctly, there are more union workers in the Federal
Government...
than there are union workers in the private sector of the economy.
But for the moral hazard of ROBBING the Treasury of the USA...
I regret not following some of my friends into working for a Federal
Government Unit of the Federal Government.
I am MUCH poorer for not making the financially-smart decision to
take a US Gov. job.
But at least I can sleep at night.
Unlike some of my friends at college that took the bait.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
From the article:
Along with the money that is paid directly to you from these clients, you receive a check each month from the state to pay some of their expenses.
If the business owner wouldn't lay down with the dog, the business owner wouldn't get fleas.
The thing is, why is the government forcing them to pay money to the union? Is the union a part of the government now?
Where do the subsidies come from? I’m not saying this is right, but caregivers had an opportunity to speak out against this and they chose not to, in very large numbers. I have been an in-home caregiver in the past, and I never took a subsidized client—that’s another way of speaking out. I see this as business as usual, especially in Michigan, but certainly not outrageous.
The other 34,000 threw the thing away, assuming they couldn’t possibly need a union – or be eligible to join one – since they own and operate private businesses.
Not just any private business--a government subsidized private business. There are all sorts of caregivers out there who are not affected by any of this, because they truly own and operate a private business.
Not outrageous? Government takes your money and gives it to a union (created out of thin air and does NOTHING for its “members” who never consented to join). Spreading the wealth I guess.
Yes that is outrageous.
They had an opportunity to speak out against it? As far as I have read they got a letter which they probably didn’t open.
So, every seven-eleven and other grocery store which accepts food stamps should be unionize? These people are not lying with dogs - they are merely accepting clientele from individuals who receive government benefits. Without too much stretch of logic, this type of "unionization" could apply to nearly every small business in America.
The government has created a two class system. Essentially, they are installing a system that gives a leg up to "unionized" child care providers.
This has to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
So, now your silence can be used against you.
This is nothing more than a government sanctioned protection scheme.
Pay da man and we will leave your business alone.
What could follow this goofy logic?
You might be a state employee if:
You sell food to food stamp recipients.
You rent to tenants who get housing assistance.
You sell clean energy systems that qualify for subsidies.
You research and develop anything that the state deems worth a subsidy.
In other words, they missed their opportunity. Sorry, but I'm not so cavalier with mail that I receive. When I get a mailer from the NAACP and the ACLU, believe it--I read it and I figure out WHY.
That letter came from an organization they had never heard of.
Folks, don't keep acting like I think this is a good thing. I refuse to call it "outrageous," I refuse to believe that this happened entirely on the QT. It didn't. There are too many good people out there who are now paying the price for their disinterest. Let it be a lesson. This IS how unions operate. When you receive a mailer or phone call from one, DO NOT make the mistake of brushing it off. And when you choose to do business with the government, expect to get screwed.
They do not recieve a subsidy from the union.
Taking from A and giving it to B is NOT the job of government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.