Why forced unionization should infuriate everyone

First, their predatory practices are outlined perfectly in this LTE:

About a year ago, I had the unions come to my door, during my working hours, and ask me if I was interested in a union for providers. I did not have time to discuss the topic and asked if I could please get information from them. They asked me to please sign a card so they could send information.

I later found out this happened to many providers, and much to our dismay that card was used as a “yes” vote for the unions!

I have written many times asking for my card back and my vote to be omitted. I have not heard one word from anyone regarding my request!

Talk about intentionally planning an ambush. These organizers didn't hesitate in ambushing this child care provider while she was busy. In fact, it isn't a stretch to think that they went there at a busy time with the goal of getting Ms. Boughner to sign a card, knowing that they'd say this was proof of interest in a union.

Second, it's questionable whether Gov. Dayton's EO is legal. Ms. Boughner writes:

In-home child care providers are independent, small-business owners and are not subject to collective bargaining arrangements.

In-home child care providers aren't public employees as defined by Minnesota state statute:

14. Public employee or employee

“Public employee” or “employee” means any person appointed or employed by a public employer except:

(a) elected public officials;

(b) election officers;

(c) commissioned or enlisted personnel of the Minnesota National Guard;

(d) emergency employees who are employed for emergency work caused by natural disaster;

(e) part-time employees whose service does not exceed the lesser of 14 hours per week or 35 percent of the normal work week in the employee’s appropriate unit;

(f) employees whose positions are basically temporary or seasonal in character and: (1) are not for more than 67 working days in any calendar year; or (2) are not for more than 100 working days in any calendar year and the employees are under the age of 22, are full-time students enrolled in a nonprofit or public educational institution prior to being hired by the employer, and have indicated, either in an application for employment or by being enrolled at an educational institution for the next academic year or term, an intention to continue as students during or after their temporary employment;

The unions' corruption and this administration's corruption is exposed in their attempt to rig the election:

As language in your order requires unions to be involved in quality improvement initiatives, all providers will be affected by unionization and therefore should have the right to vote.

This seems logical and straightforward. It's so straightforward that even a DFL governor should be able to understand it. If that isn't straightforward enough, consider this: We know that there are 4,287 in-home child care providers providing care for parents receiving government assistance. Further, we know that Gov. Dayton's executive order limits the vote to those child care providers.

What's troubling is that Gov. Dayton's executive order prohibits the other 6,700 in-home child care providers from voting. It's disgusting for at least 2 reasons. First, these in-home child care providers will tell you that it's possible that they'll care for a child whose parents are receiving government assistance.

Second, as the MLFCCA's letter to Gov. Dayton highlighted, unions would be empowered by Gov. Dayton's executive order to negotiate with legislators and Department of Human Services bureaucrats on issues like safety rules and other issues.

 

Theoretically speaking, if the unions negotiated child safety rules or other regulations that affect all Minnesota in-home child care providers, shouldn't all in-home child care providers be allowed to vote?

 

The right answer to that question is yes. The Dayton administration's answer to that question is resoundingly different:

Over  6,700 in-home child care providers don't have a vote on the unionization issue that potentially affects them, both financially and with work rules. Ms. Tinucci can't explain how "everyone has a voice in that process." She can't explain that because the 6,700+ in-home child care providers don't have a vote.

 

It's apparent that the Dayton administration is taking a hardline position on this issue. This administration is the best administration that AFSCME and SEIU can afford.

 

This paragraph is especially telling:

TRANSLATION: Let's rig the unionization vote, establish the union, then try and bully the other child care providers into unionization or, at minimum, get them to pay their Fair Share dues.

 

AFSCME and SEIU are corrupt, as is the administration they bought. Their attempt to force unionization down in-home child care providers' throats should be stopped in the courts before a single vote is cast.

 

There isn't a legal foundation for Gov. Dayton's executive order. The only foundation for Gov. Dayton's executive order is that his puppeteers have ordered him to do this.

 

This is proof that this administration isn't of, by and for the people. This administration is of, by and for AFSCME and the SEIU.