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.
Click here to read the full release.
Comments
Stealth Unionization is occurring in California
My daughter-in-law in Sacramento, California has been working a second job on the weekends with a private company where she assists disabled and mentally disadvantaged people. At first, she was paid direct by the company. Then the office issuing her check was change to the State of California since the State of California is subsidizing the health care assistance. The check she received from the State was for less money for the same work. In examining her pay statement, it was discovered the State is taking out $39.00 every two weeks for SEIU (Service Employees International Union). The State of California is taking union dues out of her pay because her work is being subsidized by the State and all employees of the State of California are required to be dues paying union members of Local 1000 of SEIU.
The next time my daughter-in-law went to work, she found out that none of her fellow workers knew union dues were being taken out of their pay.
Until this happen, I didn't know there was right to work States and non right to work States. California is the same as Michigan where in the news it showed all private day care fallibilities in Michigan that are subsidized by the State must pay union dues. Both are non right to work States.
In 2007, Local 1000 of SEIU donated $6.7 million in member dues to defeat an initiative on the California ballot that would have required unions to obtain written consent from members before money could be used for political purposes. That sent the union into economic chaos. Then the California state workers had a 50% increase of their dues assessed upon them. The new assessment raised dues to $90 a month. The union bosses deplete the members’ dues treasury to fight an initiative that would give workers choice and input into their spending decisions. Then they assess a tax on those members who have no choice so they can spend more money without member input. Local 1000 of SEIU also sent a large portion of the dues hike to SEIU headquarters in Washington, DC. The Headquarters of SEIU put $61 million into the election of Barack Obama.