BABY neeeds a Union!

BABY neeeds a Union!,
originally uploaded by terrybankert.

Baby needs a Union!
http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/2010/09/baby-neeeds-union_16.html

Here is a litmus test. You are either pro union or you are not in this case.


[disclaimer this is a blogg and I Terry Bankert am pro organized labor- we are all better off for them.]



In today’s commercial media we saw “Supreme Court orders... lower courts to explain lawsuit dismissal involving Flint Township childcare provider who says her union dues are illegal

Published: Thursday, September 16, 2010, 3:51 PM [1]
 
It seems that a couple anti-union day care workers in Flint township went to the Michigan Court of appeals in a sloppily crafted petition ask for a writ of mandamus to stop union dues from coming our of their State of Michigan Checks.




This township is,a jurisdiction adjacent to Flint the birthplace or organized labor. The Court of Appeals threw them out with a terse dismissal. The Supreme Court has simply suggested today that the Court of Appeals give a little more detail. It seems this affects 40,000 people who have previously decided they need union protection. These child- care providers were previously without a voice.
 
It seems the justices sent the case back to the state appeals court, which had ruled against three women —including Flint Township home-care provider Michelle Berry— with a six-word sentence last year. It should be noted that there was a ...proper election where these workers in their good judgment joined the union.




Lets hope the Court Of Appeals makes short work of their remand.



Terry Bankert

http://www.attorneybankert.com/
 
NOTES


And according to the center, it all started with an agreement with MCC -- which is not named in the lawsuit.[2]



In the lawsuit, plaintiffs Sherry Loar, Michelle Berry and Paulette Silverson requested that the Court of Appeals issue a "writ of mandamus" instructing the Michigan Department of Human Services to stop withholding so-called "union dues" from government child care subsidies sent to them and approximately 40,000 other home-based day care providers on behalf of low-income parents. The money withheld by the DHS — estimated at more than $2 million annually — is eventually forwarded to Child Care Providers Together Michigan, a union formed by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. [5]





In 2006, an interlocal agreement between MCC and DHS created quasi-public entity Michigan Home Based Child Care Council - which the firm says is a "shell corporation" that acts as the employer of the state's home-based daycare providers.[2]

The council then contracted with the childcare union - transforming all 40,000 home-based daycare providers, which includes hundreds from Genesee County, into union members. The contract goes until 2010.[2]

"The methodology by which this whole business started was un-constitutional," said Patrick Wright, director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. "Apparently Mott was used in order to create this thing. Once Mott signed this agreement, its role seems to have gone completely away."[2]

MERC conducted a vote by mail in October and November 2006. Of the 40,500 home day care providers who would be effected by this decision, 6,396 voted. The outcome was 5,921 in favor of the union and 475 opposed. Neither Loar, Silverson nor Berry believes they were aware of or voted in that election.[4]





Wright said two government entities do not have the power to place daycare providers in a union just because providers' clients use government aid.[2]





MOTT SAYS ITS NEWS TO US, COME ON KELLY?



The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation is suing the Department of Human Services for improperly allowing a new union to form for home-based daycare providers - and contends Mott Community College played a role.

MCC officials say that's news to them.[2]And according to the center, it all started with an agreement with MCC -- which is not named in the lawsuit.[2]MCC Spokesman Michael Kelly acknowledged the agreement but said MCC's role was just to provide training to childcare providers. He said the college was never called upon to do so and was told it was because of state budget constraints.[2]


Article 7 § 28 of Michigan’s Constitution does allow for interlocal agreements, like the one entered into by the DHS and Mott Community College to create the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. As a primary matter, these agreements are supposed to require two local governments, not just a state agency and a local government. But even if a state agency and a single local unit of government were proper parties, they could not exercise power that is constitutionally exclusive to the Legislature. The Legislature is the sole entity that can act to expand the number of employees that fall under PERA; under Michigan law, the executive branch cannot take such action unilaterally. Since the Legislature has not enacted a law to cover home-based day care providers, an executive agency cannot enter into a contract whereby these providers can be organized.

It appears that Mott Community College did not serve any role aside from giving the DHS an entity to contract with so as to create an employer that the CCPTM could organize against. The MHBCCC has its office in Lansing, and there is no indication that Mott has any presence in the listed employees at MHBCCC[4]









ITS GOOD PICKING AT THE BERRY PATCH

I’m so happy to see that we’re making progress,” Berry, of the Berry Patch daycare on Court Street, told the Flint Journal Thursday. “It’s not a win but it’s a step in the right direction — finally.”[1]



MACKINAC CENTER WINS ONE

The Midland-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy sued on behalf of the women, who say the union is illegal under Michigan law because the child-care providers are independent business owners, not public employees.[1]DHS allowed the union, Child Care Providers Together, to form without getting the state legislature's approval - and that the department is deducting union dues from the subsidies it gives those day care providers.[2]



WE ARE INDEPENDENT SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE AND THEY TOOK OUT MONEY

“I’m independently owned and operated,” Berry said. “They’ve taken our money with no explanation. It’s not doing anything to help low income families and their children and it’s not helping us.”[1]

A LITTLE HELP WAS GIVEN



She said the only obvious benefit she has received from the union so far was payment for an eight-hour class on bloodborne pathogens.[1]



UAW AND AFL

The union is a partnership between the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and was created in 2006 with help from Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration.[1]

THE STATE JUST TOOK IT OUT OF THEIR CHECKS

According to the center, the Department of Human Services improperly turned home-based daycares into union members by withholding “union dues” from child care subsidy checks sent to them on behalf of low-income parents who qualify for government assistance. [1]

MOTT IN THE GAME DODGES A BULLET

The firm said the union formed after a 2006 agreement between DHS and Mott Community College— which is not named in the lawsuit — that created a quasi-public entity Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. [1]

JUST WHO IS MICHIGAN HOME BASED CHILD CARE COUNCIL, A SHELL?



The firm has said that the council is a "shell corporation" that acts as the employer of the state's home-based daycare providers.[1]

UNION SNATCHES THE MONEY WHERE DOES IT GO?



The union gets 1.15 percent of the millions in state subsidies paid to providers who watch kids from low-income families.[1]

3 JUDGE PANEL TRIED TO DO THE RIGHT THING THE SUPREME COURT SAID WHY/

The Mackinac Center had asked the appeals court to order the state to stop deducting union dues. A three-judge panel — Patrick Meter, Donald Owens and Stephen Bordello — denied the request, but the Supreme Court wants to know why.[1]The childcare union offers home-based providers representation from the UAW and AFSCME to offer collective bargaining for better wages, billable hours and low cost or free training in areas such as first aid and CPR.[2]



The unionization is also being challenged in federal court in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. In July, a federal judge refused to dismiss the case, which is now in the early stages of litigation. [5]







[1]

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/09/supreme_court_orders_lower_cou.html




[2]

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/09/mackinac_center_lawsuit_says_d.html


[3]

State Court of Appeals case number 294087 Was Plaintiff Sherry loar and Dawn Ives against The Michigan Department of Human Services

[4]

http://www.mackinac.org/10992


[5]

http://www.mackinac.org/13562

Sphere: Related Content