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

BABY neeeds a Union!

BABY neeeds a Union!,
originally uploaded by terrybankert.

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
www.attorneybankert.comSee More

Sphere: Related Content

City Of Flint inflicted with "Recall Fever" or just democracy?

DSCN0060,
originally uploaded by terrybankert.

ROUGH NOTES
I interviewed Attorney Lubkin at 10;50 pm  09/14/10.




The judge said to the litigants. " Did you run a sample I gave you instruction to get some one to draw a sample and get to work on it. Lubkin stated  the citizens committee had hired from Wayne State University Dr, Shinki  a PHD. His job was to select a universe of nhs coded signatures that were rejected by the clerks. NHS were signatures that did not match the signature on file in the clerks office. Dr. Shinki drew sample  of 736 in sample. To th irritation of the judge the clerks came into court and said the had a need for larger sample. They brought an expert to say so. This expert was a friend of theirs named Gulliand. The Judge asked the clerks how large of a sample did you run the clerks said none.  The judge said the citizens sample of 20 was better that none.Inez Brown sat in the stand. She said she used the  8 codes in the state brochure, she testified, ..sec allowed the entry of new code verbally with no record.  Lupkin said he was faced with  clerk testimony where the statndards can't determined, he said all the invented codes were rouge codes and stealth codes because no one new their meaning. etc... Lupkin then  reviewed codes and problems ...ditto marks and numbers were confused, ...there was no constancy in how the clerks did their job... Mike Carr was to appear he showed up in the back of the room,  and at 2 pm Carr left the court ..  Gilbreath had testified  he has a taped a conversation with carr saying  the recall will never happen,  it was tape recorded and was given to attorney general, Carr never responded to the challenges of Mike Gilbreath,  The citizens put on the stand two people that  actually signed  the petitions and their signature was rejected.3 elements in dispute [1]3300 struck improperly [2]536 in  sample universe only 510 needed, [3]plus duplicate signatures, for 30 years she had always allowed the first of as duplicate but was ordered by Carr to not do that this year. court took under advisement the duplicates, the judge is reviewing the codes, or if he accepts the sampling that puts the effort over the top...it can be temporary or permanent is up to the judge.. he was annoyed Pete Bade never spoke up...Bade even missed at hearing ...Bade spoke up and the end and the judge said "you talk" to Bade, judge says at end defendant Carr delayed a lot ,

The clerks misled the judge sazying the ballot deadline was Friday earlier and to day saying it was Tuesday.

Carr never took the stand and let the searing comments against him the day prior...

 Clerks 5 attorneys on their side

Hodge of Miller  Canfield said he  had a high school reunion and could not participate over weekend
Judge ask if the firm of Miller Canfield and Paddock was a sole proprietorship,


Was this petition check rigged…we hope not…if anything we hope it was only negligence.. If the judge rules in favor of the recall circulators… rhre must be accountability.



The lack of standards has to be devastating…


PRIOR ARTICLE
As we watch the events unfold in Detroit tomorrow in the court room of Federal Judge Tarnow Keep in mind it’s the people work being done.

The Clerks representing the neutral competence required in the administration of our elections and legal challenges to its results through the citizens right to recall are in one corner.

The Citizens represent the importance of the individual voter. are in the other corner.

 Here a group of regular citizens not seeking the office only representing those  dissatisfied with an election office holder  in a flagrant act of democracy signed  their name to a petition.

The citizens are not to be measured by the volunteer organizers, some would call a disorganized rag tagged lot.  The Citizens must be measure by the thousands of people who signed these petitions. Some one has to step forward and do it to create the language, print, organize and circulate petitions. Possibly it is logical that the most angry of us not the most skilled will wrap themselves in this robe of democracy. The test is the quality of the signatures not the political characteristics of the organizers. Citizens signed these petitions and they demand in this democracy that their voice be heard.


DISCLAIMER you can skip this part: This is a blog, I have an opinion, a position and a reputation I place on the line. I am personally against recall initiatives meaning I have never signed a recall petition or voted to recall an incumbent I plan to continue this position. I am personally for the application of neutral competence and transparency in the conduct of election officials . These official are the gatekeepers of democracy. To me it is more important for all valid signatures to be used to tally whether a magic number is reached to force the vote. This Clerk accountability is more important  than the question of the recall itself. When the validity of a signature is in question it is for the court to decide. Finally it is rough duty to protect the rights of all of us by representing the recall committee. F. Anthony Lubkin the Citizens attorney has earned my respect for his efforts. I will not second guess the court.END DISCLAIMER

The citizens committee  is , from the court case caption DAVID DAVENPORT, author of Recall Language, and Volunteer for COMMITTEE TO RECALL DAYNE WALLING, and DAN PARKS, in his capacity as Committee Chairman CRAIG SMITH, in his capacity as Committee Treasurer. ALEX HARRIS. in his capacity as its Committee Vice-Chairman, will argue for and declare victory tomorrow in federal court. Their position with the sample directed to be take by the court they have  enough valid signatures.

The clerks MICHAEL CARR, Genesee County Clerk and INEZ BROWN, Flint City Clerk will argue they dod not. The Attorney for the Citizens is F. Anthony Lubkin. The attorney for the clerks are Clint City Attorney Peter Bade and other counsel from two large reputable firms one being Miller Canfield .


IN THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDNING THE PETITION SIGNATURE REJECTION SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF REJECTION ARE BEING CHALLENGED.

1. Signature that the clerks say do not match the signature on the ballot cards NHS.

2. Duplicate signature where the clerks rejected both not keeping the first and rejecting the rest.

3. Claims of illegibility

4. And more

400 beyond the nhs category will be in heated debate tomorrow.


CITIZENS RECALL COMMITTEE TO ARGUE THEY HAVE ENOUGH PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY TO BE WRONGLY REJECTED BY THE CLERKS TO HAVE THE RECALL PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT.

When the clerks directed that the petition signature to place a recall election on the Flint Office of the Mayor fell short the number short was 520. Attorney Lubkin stated that last week the Judge moved several from the uncounted Colum to the counted Colum . The new shortage number last week was lowered to 495.


The Judged order the parties to cooperate  and find a statistician to  cause a random sampling and survey of the pool of 536 NHS signatures. It is contemptuous how the clerks and their attorney have thwarted the efforts to comply with the judges directive. The Citizens hired a Wayne State Professor Shinki to pull a sample which he did. He will testify Tuesday that this sample has a 95% reliability.

The argument will be that as directed by the court of the NHS pool of 536 a random sample of 20 was picked. When interviewed over the weekend 19 people of the 20 in the sample said they signed the petition. Implicitly they showed the clerks made a mistake. These people signed affidavits and most if not all have agreed to have their testimony video taped.

THEY WILL ARGUE THAT THE  EVIDENCE WILL CONCLUSIVELY GIVE THE JUDGE A BASIS TO ORDER A PLELIMINARY INJUNCTION.


A preliminary injunction will allow the Recall of Flint Mayor Dayne Walling question to be printed on the ballot. This would be followed by a trial or formal hearing where evidence is submitted for a final decision. If the Citizens then failed the Judge could order the results of the election to be ignored.


THE RANDOM SAMPLING OF THE NHS SIGNATURES FOUND THAT OF THE POOL OF 536 95% [19/20] OR 509 SAID THE SIGNATURES ARE THEIRS, VALID AND SHOULD BE COUNTED.

If the judge allows the sample to be entered as evidence and found to be accurate the threshold has been met and the recall question should be placed on Ballot . The clerks argue that the real deadline for placing the question on the November ballot is this week.


If a preliminary injunction is granted it will only cause the printing of the ballot there will still be a trial.


If the preliminary injunction is not granted it will only mean that the ballots will not be printed for the November election. There will still be a trial and the question to recall Flint Mayor Dayne Walling could be placed on the ballot in February.


IN ADDITION TO THE NHS CODED SIGNATURES THERE ARE 400 ADITIONAL SIGNATURES NOT CODED NHS THAT ARE HOTLY CONTESTED.

At 9 pm 9/13/2010 I talked with Attorney F. Anthony Lubkin counsel for the Committee to recall Dayne Walling.


Walling is the current Mayor of Flint Michigan. We talked about the hearing tomorrow  in the court room of judge. Judge Arthur J. Tarnow United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse,,231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 124,Detroit, MI 48226

This hearing was caused when the Recall Committees appealed the county clerk's office ruling that the recall would not go on the November ballot because of insignificant valid signatures.


WHAT WILL HAPPEN PROCEDURALLY TUESDAY

Attorney Lubkin stated that "the clerks and their attorney have done everything they could to thwart the directive of Judge Tarnow. “They ignored us and treated us like crap.  The Citizens went door to door over the weekend the clerks attorneys would not cooperate. On Monday there was a meeting in the Flint City Clerks office set for 8:30 they did not arrive until 10 a.m.. The clerks attorneys participated in no meaningful way…they refused to do the sample they did not do anything they were supposed to do. The Citizens have been proactive to get this job done and the clerks have been obstructionist Lubkin implied. They have been stalling. At the very least enough has been demonstrated that the preliminary injunction should be ordered, then a full evidentiary hearing held. This glives the judge time and he can order the election to be disregarded if the citizens are not victorious"

Sphere: Related Content