'70s Radical Mark Dayton Gets Court Smackdown for his Big Labor Scheme

'70s Radical Mark Dayton Gets Court Smackdown for his Big Labor Scheme

Minnesota Judge Dale Lindman ruled that Gov. Mark Dayton's Executive Order (EO) calling for the unionization of child care providers is unconstitutional.  Judge Lindman, an appointee of Gov. Arne Carlson, said that Gov. Dayton's EO is "an unconstitutional usurpation of the Legislature's right to create or amend laws", which "is a violation of the Separation of Powers principle." The Examiner called it s "stinging defeat for Gov. Dayton, AFSCME and the SEIU."   Judge Lindman said that the BMS doesn't have statutory authority through Chapter 179 to get involved in this dispute, adding that they only have the authority to mediate in employer-employee disputes. HotAir.com weighs in on the news: Dayton attempted to bypass the state legislature in this effort by declaring through executive order that day-care centers that indirectly receive state aid through their clients are in effect public-sector workplaces — a definition not found in law or in legislative intent.  In fact, as Gary Gross points out, it arguably contravenes state law.  That way, Dayton could order an election that would allow his union allies to force their way into day-care workplaces, including many independent operations, and start extracting dues on a massive basis. I use the word extreme for a couple of reasons.  First, it fits; had Dayton succeeded in his imposition of public-worker status, the precedent established would have been so broad as to threaten the very notion of a private-sector workforce altogether.
'70s Radical Mark Dayton Gets Court Smackdown for his Big Labor Scheme

'70s Radical Mark Dayton Gets Court Smackdown for his Big Labor Scheme

Minnesota Judge Dale Lindman ruled that Gov. Mark Dayton's Executive Order (EO) calling for the unionization of child care providers is unconstitutional.  Judge Lindman, an appointee of Gov. Arne Carlson, said that Gov. Dayton's EO is "an unconstitutional usurpation of the Legislature's right to create or amend laws", which "is a violation of the Separation of Powers principle." The Examiner called it s "stinging defeat for Gov. Dayton, AFSCME and the SEIU."   Judge Lindman said that the BMS doesn't have statutory authority through Chapter 179 to get involved in this dispute, adding that they only have the authority to mediate in employer-employee disputes. HotAir.com weighs in on the news: Dayton attempted to bypass the state legislature in this effort by declaring through executive order that day-care centers that indirectly receive state aid through their clients are in effect public-sector workplaces — a definition not found in law or in legislative intent.  In fact, as Gary Gross points out, it arguably contravenes state law.  That way, Dayton could order an election that would allow his union allies to force their way into day-care workplaces, including many independent operations, and start extracting dues on a massive basis. I use the word extreme for a couple of reasons.  First, it fits; had Dayton succeeded in his imposition of public-worker status, the precedent established would have been so broad as to threaten the very notion of a private-sector workforce altogether.
Unionists Hijacking Charter Schools

Unionists Hijacking Charter Schools

Terrance Scanlon finds compelling evidence that the union bosses have sent their sights on charter schools which are not required, currently, to join union collective bargaining units. The union bosses see this both as a threat and a pool of potential union dues that are not being tapped: If you can’t beat them, take them over. That seems to be the new union strategy on charter schools. Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are governed by private groups that sign a contract, or charter, with the state. The charter requires that the school meet certain standards of accountability in return for taxpayer funding, but in other areas it exempts the school from many burdensome state or local regulations. Some of the most burdensome are rules required by labor unions. Charter school teachers usually are not required to join existing union collective-bargaining units. This means charter schools can more easily promote good teachers and fire bad ones. But, of course, this has made charter schools targets for hostile union action. Unions correctly view charter schools as a threat to their stranglehold over public education and the tax dollars that come with it. Unions have denounced charter schools for “skimming” off the best students from the public schools, and they have sued school districts that introduce charter schools. Unions have tried to block or repeal charter school laws, and they’ve tried to limit the number of charter schools allowed by states. But in Minnesota, the teachers unions are moving in a new direction. State officials recently have given the Minnesota Guild of Charter Schools, an organization created by the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT), the right to authorize charter schools. The prospect of union-authorized charter schools disturbs many observers, who predict it will lead to conflict. A report sponsored in part by the Progressive Policy Institute summarized the source of the hostility between the two sides: “Unions believe in professionalism through clearly defined roles, rights and responsibilities for teachers. Charter school leaders equate this vision of professionalism with resistance to change and protection of unfit teachers. Charter leaders believe in competition and entrepreneurialism. Union leaders equate these ideas with indifference to disadvantaged students and treatment of teachers as commodities.”
NRTW Attorneys file suit against MN Gov. Dayton's SEIU-AFSCME payback scheme

NRTW Attorneys file suit against MN Gov. Dayton's SEIU-AFSCME payback scheme

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, like former governors Gray Davis (CA), Rod Blagojevich (IL), and Jennifer Granholm (MI) to name a few, knows how to payback the SEIU union bosses -- they all indentured parents and family members who take care of relatives to Big Labor.  It is a shameless act of pure political power compelling people who are not even employees of the state to be required to pay union dues and fees.  In Michigan,  Governor Rick Snyder ended Granholm's SEIU payback scheme.  But, in other states like Minnesota, parents and family members have not been so fortunate.  That is why the National Right To Work Legal Defense is taking the case in an effort to expose the scheme and have the court system eventually rule against everyone of these schemes. Legal schemes that were in a large part a brainchild of Obama's former NLRB member Craig Becker. From The StarTribune article by Jim Ragsdale and Paul  Walsh: Opponents of the drive to unionize in-home child care providers have filed a second suit aimed at blocking a union vote. A group of 12 child-care providers, aided by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed suit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis against Gov. Mark Dayton's executive order authorizing a union election. The group argues that the order is unconstitutional because it could ultimately require all providers to be represented by the union, whether they want to or not. The federal complaint says that if either or both unions win the elections in their geographic areas, the union would become the "exclusive" representative of all providers. It said the providers who filed the suit do not want to associate with either union "in any way" and "wish to retain their individual right to choose with whom they associate to lobby the state.'' "In the order, the state is going to designate a representative of these providers for the purposes of petitioning the state,'' said William Messenger, an attorney for the foundation, based in Springfield, Va. "It infringes on the freedom of association -- the First Amendment protects to right to associate or not associate.'' After an organizing drive by the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Dayton issued an order setting a union election for those providers who care for children with state subsidies -- about 4,300 of the state's 11,000 licensed in-home providers. The foundation is focused on fighting what it considers "compulsory unionism,'' such as workplaces where employees are required to be members. It is providing legal work on the lawsuit for free, Messenger said. From the related National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation press release:
NRTW Attorneys file suit against MN Gov. Dayton's SEIU-AFSCME payback scheme

NRTW Attorneys file suit against MN Gov. Dayton's SEIU-AFSCME payback scheme

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, like former governors Gray Davis (CA), Rod Blagojevich (IL), and Jennifer Granholm (MI) to name a few, knows how to payback the SEIU union bosses -- they all indentured parents and family members who take care of relatives to Big Labor.  It is a shameless act of pure political power compelling people who are not even employees of the state to be required to pay union dues and fees.  In Michigan,  Governor Rick Snyder ended Granholm's SEIU payback scheme.  But, in other states like Minnesota, parents and family members have not been so fortunate.  That is why the National Right To Work Legal Defense is taking the case in an effort to expose the scheme and have the court system eventually rule against everyone of these schemes. Legal schemes that were in a large part a brainchild of Obama's former NLRB member Craig Becker. From The StarTribune article by Jim Ragsdale and Paul  Walsh: Opponents of the drive to unionize in-home child care providers have filed a second suit aimed at blocking a union vote. A group of 12 child-care providers, aided by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed suit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis against Gov. Mark Dayton's executive order authorizing a union election. The group argues that the order is unconstitutional because it could ultimately require all providers to be represented by the union, whether they want to or not. The federal complaint says that if either or both unions win the elections in their geographic areas, the union would become the "exclusive" representative of all providers. It said the providers who filed the suit do not want to associate with either union "in any way" and "wish to retain their individual right to choose with whom they associate to lobby the state.'' "In the order, the state is going to designate a representative of these providers for the purposes of petitioning the state,'' said William Messenger, an attorney for the foundation, based in Springfield, Va. "It infringes on the freedom of association -- the First Amendment protects to right to associate or not associate.'' After an organizing drive by the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Dayton issued an order setting a union election for those providers who care for children with state subsidies -- about 4,300 of the state's 11,000 licensed in-home providers. The foundation is focused on fighting what it considers "compulsory unionism,'' such as workplaces where employees are required to be members. It is providing legal work on the lawsuit for free, Messenger said. From the related National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation press release:

"Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm Makes the Case for Right to Work Laws"

Matt Mayer of the Buckeye Institute debunks the long-term economic growth without Right To Work freedom is sustainable. Mayer uses a Columbus Dispatch reporter Joe Hatlett column that featured Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to expose the fact that corporate welfare and reduced regulations ignore the “proverbial elephant in the room weighing down” compulsory union states like Indiana, Ohio, Illinois,, and Michigan. From Matt Mayer’s post: “With Michigan bleeding jobs and tax revenues, Granholm said she followed the corporate playbook in her attempt to close a huge state budget deficit and make Michigan more competitive. ‘In listening to the business community, I cut takes [sic] 99 times, and I ended shrinking government more than any state in the nation. In my two terms, I cut more by far than any state in the nation. And yet, we still have the highest unemployment rate. There was no correlation.’ Granholm conceded that streamlining business regulations and lowering taxes — Kasich’s economic recovery mantra — are helpful, but they aren’t a panacea…[l]abor costs, help with start-up costs and proximity to markets are other factors.” Hallett and Governor Granholm fail to mention why streamlining regulations and lowering taxes aren’t helping the northern states (located within 50 percent of the U.S. population and with low start-up costs) compete against the southern and western states. Instead, Hallett ignores the obvious answer and pleads for an end to corporate pork (with which we enthusiastically agree). The reason Michigan and Ohio can’t compete is that the southern and western states already have fewer regulations and lower taxes, so “catching up” with those states still leaves the proverbial elephant in the room weighing down the northern states. Plus, those states are also pushing for lower taxes and fewer regulations, so the northern states are perpetually behind them. The elephant, which Governor Granholm does hint at, is labor costs, or, more specifically, unionized labor costs (see: General Motors and the United Auto Workers). As I noted in Six Principles for Fixing Ohio, “Of course, tax and regulatory burdens also impact a state’s economy. Although many of the forced unionization states have heavy tax burdens and many of the worker freedom states have light tax burdens, some heavily taxed worker freedom states (Idaho, Nevada, and Utah) had the strongest sustained job growth from 1990 to today. Similarly, a few moderately taxed forced unionization states still had weak job growth (Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri). The combination of both a heavy tax burden and forced unionization is deadly when it comes to job growth, as 11 of the 15 worst performing states are ranked in the top 20 for high tax burdens.” If Ohio and the other states from Missouri to Maine want to truly compete with Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, then those states need to enact laws that protect the rights of workers not to join a labor union to get a job.