Green Room

Federal judge blocks forced unionization of MN child-care providers

posted at 4:57 pm on September 20, 2013 by

Mitch Berg has covered this issue for some time, and the Strib has the details.  It’s temporary, but at least it’s a start:

A hotly-contested law that was to allow in-home child care providers to vote on whether to unionize has been temporarily blocked by a federal appeals court.

Officials of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is representing Minnesota providers who oppose unionization, said they received notice late Thursday that their motion for an injunction blocking the law was granted by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to lawyers for the group, that means the child-care union election cannot take place until the injunction is lifted. The appeals court said it wants to wait to see if the U.S.Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal on a related case dealing with unionization of home-care workers. That case is called Harris v. Quinn.

We’ve covered this a few times here.  The effort got shut down on the Democrats’ first attempt, but it came back when they captured the legislature in the last election.  Basically, the law treated all child-care and personal-care attendants who get state funds directly or indirectly to be considered state employees, which then allowed AFSCME to hold one election that would force all providers to pay union dues, rather than attempting to unionize every care center separately.  The requirement to join would include parents and other family members receiving assistance funding to care for relatives without any affiliation with a care center at all.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court puts an end to this nonsense once and for all.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“Nonsense” is too mild a word.

“Shakedown” & “extortion” would be a better fit, though not as strong as I would use.

TKindred on September 20, 2013 at 5:05 PM

They already did this in California. The union bosses now collect their cut directly from the state government. There was never any vote of any kind, just politicians pushing cash directly into their friends pockets.

Of course, and as usual, the media did not cover this.

Freddy on September 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Let’s hope the Supreme Court puts an end to this nonsense once and for all.

John Roberts just needs to know if this is a tax.

Don’t hold your breath.

Bitter Clinger on September 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM

So, if your child drowns in the bathtub while the care provider is on her mandatory 15-minute break, is that just tough luck for you?

Kafir on September 20, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Let’s hope the Supreme Court puts an end to this nonsense once and for all.

Or maybe we can hope that the Supreme Court will quit deciding cases over which it has no jurisdiction and return to its constitutionally delegated powers.

gryphon202 on September 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

This similar boondoggle was pushed thru in Michigan, under the auspices of Governess Jenny Granholm .. affected some 80,000 providers, and took years to finally kill; the total skim would take a BIG bite out of a $1-billion banknote .. that right into the demoRAT campaign coffers.

The initial ‘vote’ was decided by a plurality of -all- responses (something like 400), to a mailing that looked like really bad junk mail.

/advertising, indeed. bastages.
/.

CaveatEmpty on September 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Or maybe we can hope that the Supreme Court will quit deciding cases over which it has no jurisdiction and return to its constitutionally delegated powers.

gryphon202 on September 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

While I share the sentiment, this strikes me that it should be a freedom of association case. You cannot constitutionally force someone to join a union.

Othniel on September 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Or maybe we can hope that the Supreme Court will quit deciding cases over which it has no jurisdiction and return to its constitutionally delegated powers.

gryphon202 on September 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

While I share the sentiment, this strikes me that it should be a freedom of association case. You cannot constitutionally force someone to join a union.

Othniel on September 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

+1000

That is exactly what this is and is exactly what the constitution was designed to protect the citizenry from. It is very much the supreme court’s job to enforce such constitutional protections. These babysitters will get nothing of value from the union. They want nothing to do with it yet it will take the bread right out of their mouths. Mark Dayton in a just world would have no political future for pushing this economic rape of helpless low income people just trying to get by on a very low wage but high responsibility job.

KW64 on September 21, 2013 at 11:37 AM

sounds like other public employee unions and the extortion they exhibit. Pay your dues or you have to pay 85% of the full dues to not be a member.

Imrahil on September 21, 2013 at 12:11 PM

The State Courts in Michigan shot down that Leftist BIG Labor extortion plot 5 years ago. C’mon, MinnySOtans, get with the program!
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on September 21, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Why not just require all citizens who breathe to pay to the union?

pat on September 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Basically, the law treated all child-care and personal-care attendants who get state funds directly or indirectly to be considered state employees, which then allowed AFSCME to hold one election that would force all providers to pay union dues, rather than attempting to unionize every care center separately.

.
Deemed hogwash…

ExpressoBold on September 21, 2013 at 9:01 PM

While I share the sentiment, this strikes me that it should be a freedom of association case. You cannot constitutionally force someone to join a union.

Othniel on September 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

The federal constitution does not play a role here, and neither should the Supreme Court. This is a state law being debated. Now, most state constitutions have a guarantee of freedom of association, just as the federal constitution does. But that would be argued in state court under the state constitution.

Yes, what I just said flies in the face of most interpretations of the constitution over the last hundred years or so. But the idea of “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights is as constitutionally flawed as is the notion that Obamacare is a tax, and is just as made up out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court.

In short, the SCOTUS should have no jurisdiction what-so-ever here. This should be left to the state legislature, courts, and citizens to decide.

Shump on September 21, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Roberts will just call it a tax

ladyingray on September 22, 2013 at 12:23 AM