By the narrowest of margins (2
votes) the
Minnesota
legislature voted to give certain in-home child-care providers and personal
care attendants (PCAs) the right to unionize.
This comes at a time when nearby states are curbing organized labor’s
clout. For example, last year
Wisconsin eliminated union rights to
bargain over wages,
etc. in public schools and most other public sector jobs, and
Indiana
and
Michigan passed
“Right-To-Work” legislation, where union membership cannot be made a mandatory
condition of employment. By contrast, the
new
Minnesota
law stands to benefit two labor unions that lobbied aggressively for its
passage. The American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), is organizing the in-home child-care
providers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is seeking to
represent the in-home PCAs. As with most
hotly contested political issues, opinions on the impact of this legislation
depends on who is talking.
The unions and their supporters
say the new law merely allows eligible child-care and personal care attendants
the option to vote on whether or not they want a union. Of course they also claim that union
representation will translate into higher pay, greater benefits and training (which
they equate with improving quality of care).
Left unanswered is a question all too often ignored in politics these
days: Who will pay for all this,
including the dues these unions will undoubtedly charge? The providers of these critical in-home
services will have no choice but to raise their rates and the state, with tax
dollars, will have to pick up the tab.
Opponents of this law are left to
lick fresh wounds. They argued,
obviously unsuccessfully, that passage of this bill was tantamount to the
DFL-controlled Minnesota
legislature simply repaying AFSCME and the SEIU for making significant campaign
contributions to help elect a DFL majority.
With an estimated 21,000 in-home child-care and personal care attendants
now open for organizing, the union dues they would be charged could bring in
millions per year in new revenues for these two unions. Because these union revenues would come,
albeit indirectly, from tax payers to cover the necessary price hikes providers
must charge, opponents see this new law as diverting public monies to unions as
a payback for help in last year’s elections.
Perhaps lost in all the political
rhetoric is the fact that this legislation goes beyond simply allowing people a
choice. Anyone who knows how union
organizing really works knows that union elections are a far cry from “just
letting people vote for or against a union.” As with any union vote, all the union needs to
win are
a majority of those who show up to vote. For example, if only 1,000 of the estimated
21,000 eligible voters actually vote, the unions would need only 501 votes in
their favor to win. What’s more – and
few people, including the care providers themselves, realize this –
if the unions win, they win representational
status for all 21,000 individuals, including those who choose not to vote and
those who vote against the union!
The legislature had to make
sweeping changes and redefine relationships across the state to make it
possible for these two unions to have a shot at organizing 21,000 new
dues-paying members. Besides changing
the legal landscape of well-established laws of union organizing, the new law
effectively redefines the covered providers as all being employed by the State
of Minnesota. Yet most in-home care providers work for
themselves; that is, they are considered in the eyes of existing law to be
so-called “independent contractors” and not employees. Those that do not work for themselves are
employed by hundreds of small employers.
Whereas union organizing has forever sought the union’s status to
bargain on behalf of employees, with their employers, the new law
groups independent contractors with employees for the purpose of bargaining
with the state! By pure political fiat these
diverse groups have been effectively re-designated as employees of the State of
Minnesota,
all to pave the way for two unions to organize thousands of new members.
Numerous legal challenges to this
new law are expected. If the union-supporting
politicians win in court, it begs the question:
Who is next? If the State of Minnesota can
essentially annex entire occupations to make individuals working in those fields
employees of the state, what would stop the legislature and governor from going
after plumbers, electricians, lawyers, and doctors? The only requirements seem to be that (1)
government monies are flowing their way, and (2) a politically active union
wants the ability to organize them.
Unfortunately, today all too often companies in the private sector rely
on government monies as government continues to grow as a dominant player in the
economy.
One legislator who supported the
AFSCME/SEIU bill was asked to respond to the opposition’s claim that people who
do not want union representation could be forced into a union by this law. The legislator glibly replied: “If they don’t want the union, they can
simply choose not to take the government’s money” (state subsidies to pay for
child and personal in-home care). The
irony of this is that the new union organizing law was accompanied by tax hikes
on many businesses and higher wage earners.
When the government takes more and more of businesses’ money it gets
harder and harder for them not to rely for their survival on some of the
government’s handouts of that money.
Unfortunately, government handouts come with conditions. In this case, the conditions appear to have
been set by organized labor – allow union organizing or stay away from the
government’s money!
Judge Postpones Implementation of Governor Dayton's Executive Order Permitting Daycare Workers to Vote to Unionize
