Here are a few article qoutes and links that I think are instructive:
A. It is time for all Senators and State Representatives to do what is right, instead of being scared of or beholden to the government employee unions. This article chronicles several attempts to control costs that have been derailed by the public sector unions.
“Michigan has the ninth-most heavily unionized state and local government workforces among the states. In a recent article about the rise of public-sector unionism, New York professors Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo described how government employee unions are "bankrupting states and municipalities" because they "achieve influence on both sides of the bargaining table by making campaign contributions and organizing get-out-the-vote drives to elect politicians who then control the negotiations over their pay, benefits, and work rules.
In Michigan, one can add preventing the legislature from adopting reasonable public employee pay and pension reforms to that list.” Analysis: Government Employee Political Clout Obstructs Budget Reform, April 13, 2010
B. Here is some insight into what is happening with SEIU, one of the strongest government employee unions in the country and how they are extracting wealth from taxpayers and redistributing it to government workers.
“It is no coincidence that under Stern’s tenure the number of government union members surpassed the number of private sector union members for the first time in our nation’s history. There are two reasons for this: 1) Unions kill private sector jobs, and unionized companies earn profits 15% lower than those of comparable non-union firms. This makes unionized firms less competitive, which is why unionized manufacturing jobs fell 75% between 1977 and 2008, while non-union manufacturing INCREASED 6% over that same time. 2) Government union jobs face no competition. Public sector unionization has exploded in the past decade as leaders like Stern realized politics paid much better than the free market. Under Stern’s leadership, SEIU has become the nation’s second largest government union with over half of its membership drawing a paycheck on the taxpayers dime.” Morning Bell: Andy Stern’s America The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. April 13, 2010
C. More political payback from Obama for the unions' support in the 2008 elections. Elections to approve a new union would only require a majority of those voting, in contrast to prior law which required a majority of workers affected. Rule change aids union workers in airline, rail industries, from The Detroit News, May 11, 2010
D. Responsible contractor" provisions must be rejected, whether they be in federal law, state law or local municipality policies, as they drive up taxpayer costs, the last thing we need now with stretched public budgets. A "responsible contractor" policy allows bidders that provide higher pay and richer benefits for their workers to get an advantage in winning government contracts. In practice, the plan would favor firms whose workers are members of unions. Editorial: Fed contracts should favor best price, not unions, from the Detroit News, March 16, 2010
E. “The government class enjoys higher salaries, richer benefits and far better job security than the citizens they are supposed to be serving. . . . The 'public servants' have become the masters over taxpayers.” Good times still roll for government employees, from the Detroit Free Press .
F. We will not have a sustainable long-term budget plan without addressing public employee wage and benefit issues. The legislature, meanwhile, was not able to get the 2/3 vote needed in the State Senate to rescind the 3% raise for unionized state employees. With no Democrat support in the Senate, the Senate could not send the measure to the Democrat controlled House of Representatives, where it would have been even harder to get the necessary 2/3 vote. If we can’t even block pay raises to public sector union employees, is there hope to get cuts? State pay issue will get worse, from the Detroit News, April 2, 2010
G. “Public Labor Union claims of $700 million in concessions by state employees are a comparison of itself to itself. It pales in comparison to the sacrifices made by private sector taxpayers in Michigan that are being asked to foot the bill for their unrealistic benefit and pay levels. They have been shielded and protected from reality for far too long and it is a luxury that taxpayers in this state can no longer afford.” $700 Million in Concessions By State Workers? Really? Where Did That Number Come From? From the NFIB, March 18, 2010.
H. “State Sen. Nancy Cassis has introduced legislation in Lansing that would allow localities to set up what might be called “right-to-work zones. . . Among nearly all private-sector workers, labor relations are governed by federal law: the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA is fairly exhaustive, and the courts have consistently interpreted it as “occupying the field” of private-sector labor relations, leaving very little room for states to act. But there’s one big exception carved out of federal labor law: States can regulate union membership and agency fees. This is where state right-to-work laws come into play.
“Right-to-work” prohibits unions and employers from signing contracts that force workers to join or financially support a union, leaving union membership and support to the conscience of individual workers.”
This local approach to Right-to-Work could be the means to bit by bit improve the image of the state as anti-business/anti-jobs, and make the state more competitive. Local Right-to-Work: Yes we can! Well, maybe. If we set it up just right..., October 28, 2009.
I. “Place the blame for the loss of the much-needed [Race to the Top] grants squarely on the Michigan Education Association. It sabotaged the state's application at every step. . . . But real change in Michigan's public schools will only come when parents and others concerned about the future of the state decide they've had enough of the Michigan Education Association's obstructionism. “ MEA's sabotage kept Michigan out of Race to Top finalists, From The Detroit News, March 7, 2010.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Reform of MPSERS Retirement System Necessary – But Only Wisely
Governor Granholm proposed changes to the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System (MPSERS) in her budget proposal. With the contribution rate public schools and community colleges needing to pay going up to 19.41% for the coming school year, it is obvious that the system is unsustainable. Changes must be made to keep the program actuarially sound, and yet affordable by the education system.
Governor Granholm’s proposal was aimed to create cost savings to help balance the budget, but also contained a sweetener to entice long tenured employees to retire (and allow lower cost new employees to be hired) by raising the multiplier of 1.5% to 1.6%, for a 6.6% increase. The multiplier is multiplied by the number of service years credited to the employee. For example, with 30 years of service, and if the highest 3-year average salary were $60,000, at a multiplier of 1.5, the retirement payments would be 1.5% x 30 x $60,000 = $27,000 per year, while at 1.6% they would be $28,800.
The Senate chose not to include the sweetener in Senate Bill 1227, while adopting the bulk of the Governor’s proposal. Significant savings would result. On the other hand, the Democrat controlled House of Representatives amended the bill to send back to the Senate the bill increasing the sweetener from 1.5% to 1.7% or a 13.3% increase, plus a plethora of additional sweeteners.
The worst change made in the House is changing the lifetime health coverage to a constitutionally protected fringe benefit, which it is not now classified. The Michigan Capitol Confidential estimated the added burden to the State would be a new $25.9 Billion liability for the taxpayers.
When the State is having trouble adopting a balanced budget, does it make sense to be adding to the State’s costs and liabilities? Well, to the Michigan Education Association bankrolled and controlled House Democrats, apparently it does.
I say “NO, IT DOES NOT!”
With the bill thrown into a free conference committee, the Senate Republicans would be better off coming out with no bill than a poor one, just to get something agreed upon. With the state the state is in, we cannot afford to saddle the taxpayers with even more costs and liabilities.
Governor Granholm’s proposal was aimed to create cost savings to help balance the budget, but also contained a sweetener to entice long tenured employees to retire (and allow lower cost new employees to be hired) by raising the multiplier of 1.5% to 1.6%, for a 6.6% increase. The multiplier is multiplied by the number of service years credited to the employee. For example, with 30 years of service, and if the highest 3-year average salary were $60,000, at a multiplier of 1.5, the retirement payments would be 1.5% x 30 x $60,000 = $27,000 per year, while at 1.6% they would be $28,800.
The Senate chose not to include the sweetener in Senate Bill 1227, while adopting the bulk of the Governor’s proposal. Significant savings would result. On the other hand, the Democrat controlled House of Representatives amended the bill to send back to the Senate the bill increasing the sweetener from 1.5% to 1.7% or a 13.3% increase, plus a plethora of additional sweeteners.
The worst change made in the House is changing the lifetime health coverage to a constitutionally protected fringe benefit, which it is not now classified. The Michigan Capitol Confidential estimated the added burden to the State would be a new $25.9 Billion liability for the taxpayers.
When the State is having trouble adopting a balanced budget, does it make sense to be adding to the State’s costs and liabilities? Well, to the Michigan Education Association bankrolled and controlled House Democrats, apparently it does.
I say “NO, IT DOES NOT!”
With the bill thrown into a free conference committee, the Senate Republicans would be better off coming out with no bill than a poor one, just to get something agreed upon. With the state the state is in, we cannot afford to saddle the taxpayers with even more costs and liabilities.
Sources:
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Ann Arbor Airport Expansion Is Not Justified Now
On March 20, 2010, I took a position opposing the expansion of the Ann Arbor Airport. My statement to the news media was as follows:
“I oppose the proposed expansion of the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport as described in the “Preferred Alternative” in the recent draft Environmental Assessment. The changes proposed neither greatly increase safety nor sufficiently enhance the operations of the airport to justify spending taxpayers’ money on the proposed changes now.
None of the stated objectives individually (or even collectively) is sufficient to justify the spending of public taxpayer dollars now. If State Road is widened in the future, then a shift of the runway to the SW would be appropriate, which would achieve objectives 2, 3 and 5.
But wait, “Isn’t this money free, that is, federal money from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and if we don’t spend it, someone else will?”
97.5% of the estimated $1.3 million cost would come from that fund, and 2.5% from the airport’s operating fund. However, we need to take a principled view of this “free” money. Everyone acting as if federal money is free is exactly what has gotten us into the U.S. Congressional “earmark” game, as everyone tries to “get their share”, to the point that the whole country suffers from budget deficits and an exploding national debt. If a project is not a good expenditure, it should not matter what the source of the funds are, as ultimately we all are paying the cost.
In this case, the shift of the runway 150’ SW may be needed in the future, but not now. The extension of the runway might never be justified. We ought not to spend these funds now.”
The full statement submitted to the Michigan Department of Transportation can be found here.
Several responses to the statement warranted the following Q and A:
Q: The project would be paid from user fees paid into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Why are we worried about the cost?
A: The fact that the cost of the project would come from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund actually creates less of an objection than ordinary Congressional earmarks in that the users of the airport contribute into the fund through their aviation fuel tax. Airplane owners can say that they have already paid for the project through their user fees. For me, the bottom line is that if a project does not generate more benefits than its cost, it does not make economic sense to do the project, no matter what the source is. The fact that the money is “free” does not increase the project's benefits nor decrease its cost.
Q: Doesn’t this endanger the survival of the airport?
A: I support the continued operation of the airport. Nowhere in this discussion have I heard that the proposed improvements are needed to ensure the survival of the airport. The proposed improvement would be nice, but not required by any current FAA regulation for continued operation. The Ann Arbor Municipal Airport serves a useful function, especially for student pilots (which I was one back in 1975 flying out of a grass strip near Mason, MI) which you really want to keep away from the busier airports. If you read the full analysis, you will also see that I would support the shift of the runway 150’ to the SW at such time as State Road is widened, but doing so now with no widening of State Road imminent would not be necessary now.
I would also work to receive funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund if the airport ever became in danger of closing due to lack of funds for necessary improvements. While little argument can be made that expansion of the airport would create measurable economic benefit, closure would clearly entail significant economic loss which should be avoided.
Q: If Ann Arbor does not get these funds, someone else will, so why not get our share?
A: That is an argument for every project in the United States, and for every earmark. My best response is to suggest you Google “tragedy of the commons”, which in short, means that when each individual pursues his or her own personal best interest in the use of a common resource, the common resource gets overused to the point that all lose. I know, this is a philosophical argument, but we need to start somewhere.
I understand the need for jobs in this area, and having taken 27 courses in economics over the course of my lifetime, I understand the “multiplier effect” of expenditures in an area (although one can argue just what the multiplier is, from 3 to whatever, depending on the “leakage” from the area economy). So, balancing a principles approach vs. a purely “what’s in it for me (or us)” get tough. On this issue, I have chosen the principled approach.
We will not agree on every issue in the future, but what I pledge is to be willing to take positions based on research of the facts and analyses, listen and consider alternate points of view.
Q: You say you are taking a “principled view” on this issue. Would your stance change if the amount of the project were $10 billion to be spent in our area, instead of the much smaller projected cost of $1.3 million for the proposed expansion?
A: This, like many questions that State Representatives face, is not a question subject to an easy “Yes” or “No” answer. Taking a principled view does not mean we should never take federal money. If the hypothetical case would show significant benefits in excess of the costs, then my answer might well be different. A $10 billion investment into our area would obviously result in a substantial positive economic impact for us, and would be extremely hard to not want.
What many people would miss in their thinking about the costs and benefits in this hypothetical (as well as most other well-meaning government programs) is that the taxes necessary to pay for these “free” projects also destroy as many jobs as they create, in very diffused secondary or indirect effects. Most “tax and spend” programs are zero sum games, in that there are winners and losers, with no net positive impact. The reason they are so popular among people (and their elected representatives) is that the winners are easily identified and vocal, while the losers are harder to identify because the costs are indirect, usually more in number, but each hurt only a little bit and therefore not as vocal.
The issues we face as a community today are often complex and not subject to easy answers. We need to have good dialogue on these important issues. “Politics” is, after all, conversations about important topics leading to ultimate decisions that affect virtually every aspect of our lives. (Although many people say it means "poly" (or many) and "ticks" (or many bloodsucking parasites). :)
I appreciate the opportunity to hear supporting and opposing views. Only by considering all points of view can we be sure we make decisions based on all the facts, rather than on uninformed, predisposed opinions.
“I oppose the proposed expansion of the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport as described in the “Preferred Alternative” in the recent draft Environmental Assessment. The changes proposed neither greatly increase safety nor sufficiently enhance the operations of the airport to justify spending taxpayers’ money on the proposed changes now.
None of the stated objectives individually (or even collectively) is sufficient to justify the spending of public taxpayer dollars now. If State Road is widened in the future, then a shift of the runway to the SW would be appropriate, which would achieve objectives 2, 3 and 5.
But wait, “Isn’t this money free, that is, federal money from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and if we don’t spend it, someone else will?”
97.5% of the estimated $1.3 million cost would come from that fund, and 2.5% from the airport’s operating fund. However, we need to take a principled view of this “free” money. Everyone acting as if federal money is free is exactly what has gotten us into the U.S. Congressional “earmark” game, as everyone tries to “get their share”, to the point that the whole country suffers from budget deficits and an exploding national debt. If a project is not a good expenditure, it should not matter what the source of the funds are, as ultimately we all are paying the cost.
In this case, the shift of the runway 150’ SW may be needed in the future, but not now. The extension of the runway might never be justified. We ought not to spend these funds now.”
The full statement submitted to the Michigan Department of Transportation can be found here.
Several responses to the statement warranted the following Q and A:
Q: The project would be paid from user fees paid into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Why are we worried about the cost?
A: The fact that the cost of the project would come from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund actually creates less of an objection than ordinary Congressional earmarks in that the users of the airport contribute into the fund through their aviation fuel tax. Airplane owners can say that they have already paid for the project through their user fees. For me, the bottom line is that if a project does not generate more benefits than its cost, it does not make economic sense to do the project, no matter what the source is. The fact that the money is “free” does not increase the project's benefits nor decrease its cost.
Q: Doesn’t this endanger the survival of the airport?
A: I support the continued operation of the airport. Nowhere in this discussion have I heard that the proposed improvements are needed to ensure the survival of the airport. The proposed improvement would be nice, but not required by any current FAA regulation for continued operation. The Ann Arbor Municipal Airport serves a useful function, especially for student pilots (which I was one back in 1975 flying out of a grass strip near Mason, MI) which you really want to keep away from the busier airports. If you read the full analysis, you will also see that I would support the shift of the runway 150’ to the SW at such time as State Road is widened, but doing so now with no widening of State Road imminent would not be necessary now.
I would also work to receive funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund if the airport ever became in danger of closing due to lack of funds for necessary improvements. While little argument can be made that expansion of the airport would create measurable economic benefit, closure would clearly entail significant economic loss which should be avoided.
Q: If Ann Arbor does not get these funds, someone else will, so why not get our share?
A: That is an argument for every project in the United States, and for every earmark. My best response is to suggest you Google “tragedy of the commons”, which in short, means that when each individual pursues his or her own personal best interest in the use of a common resource, the common resource gets overused to the point that all lose. I know, this is a philosophical argument, but we need to start somewhere.
I understand the need for jobs in this area, and having taken 27 courses in economics over the course of my lifetime, I understand the “multiplier effect” of expenditures in an area (although one can argue just what the multiplier is, from 3 to whatever, depending on the “leakage” from the area economy). So, balancing a principles approach vs. a purely “what’s in it for me (or us)” get tough. On this issue, I have chosen the principled approach.
We will not agree on every issue in the future, but what I pledge is to be willing to take positions based on research of the facts and analyses, listen and consider alternate points of view.
Q: You say you are taking a “principled view” on this issue. Would your stance change if the amount of the project were $10 billion to be spent in our area, instead of the much smaller projected cost of $1.3 million for the proposed expansion?
A: This, like many questions that State Representatives face, is not a question subject to an easy “Yes” or “No” answer. Taking a principled view does not mean we should never take federal money. If the hypothetical case would show significant benefits in excess of the costs, then my answer might well be different. A $10 billion investment into our area would obviously result in a substantial positive economic impact for us, and would be extremely hard to not want.
What many people would miss in their thinking about the costs and benefits in this hypothetical (as well as most other well-meaning government programs) is that the taxes necessary to pay for these “free” projects also destroy as many jobs as they create, in very diffused secondary or indirect effects. Most “tax and spend” programs are zero sum games, in that there are winners and losers, with no net positive impact. The reason they are so popular among people (and their elected representatives) is that the winners are easily identified and vocal, while the losers are harder to identify because the costs are indirect, usually more in number, but each hurt only a little bit and therefore not as vocal.
The issues we face as a community today are often complex and not subject to easy answers. We need to have good dialogue on these important issues. “Politics” is, after all, conversations about important topics leading to ultimate decisions that affect virtually every aspect of our lives. (Although many people say it means "poly" (or many) and "ticks" (or many bloodsucking parasites). :)
I appreciate the opportunity to hear supporting and opposing views. Only by considering all points of view can we be sure we make decisions based on all the facts, rather than on uninformed, predisposed opinions.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Were home based child care workers unionized against their will? The controversy continues…..
Once elected, I will fight forced unionization of independent private business owners who are receiving payments from the stateon behalf of their clients. Further, I will fight against high-handed executive branch diversion of funds contrary to the intent of the Legislature in its adopting the Appropriations bills.
Rick Olson, Candidate for State Representative, 55th Legislative District
In 2009, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit (Loar v. DHS) against the state Department of Human Services on behalf of at least 40,000 home-based (business owners ) day care providers. The case challenges the union effort to designate the providers as government employees for unionization and dues-collecting purposes. The case is based on the grounds that state law presumes that no one is subject to public-sector bargaining unless state legislation has made them so, and in this case, there is no legislation — only an interlocal agreement. On December 30, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed the case without explanation. The public-interest law firm has appealed the case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Several efforts to get the state Supreme Court to hear the case are underway.
“State Representative Dave Agema, R-Grandville, has submitted a resolution asking that the Michigan Supreme Court hear a case involving home-based day care workers who say they didn't realize they were unionized by the state.” State Reps. Joining Day Care Union Case, Tom Gantert article on Michigan Confidential, April 18, 2010.
The National Federation of Independent Business has joined the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in the legal arguments to go before the Michigan Supreme Court by filing a amicus brief. A show of public support for the Michigan State Supreme Court to hear the case is important, as the Court has discretionary authority on whether to hear the case or not.
Background Articles:
“A year ago in December . . . more than 40,000 . . . home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan — a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union had won a certification election conducted by mail under the auspices of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. In that election only 6,000 day care providers voted. The pro-labor vote turned out. . . . [T]he state created an "employer" for the union to "organize" against. Of course, Michigan's independent day care providers don't work for anybody except the parents who are their customers. Nevertheless, because some of these parents qualify for public subsidies, the Child Care Providers "union" claimed the providers were "public employees."
Michigan's Department of Human Services teamed with Flint-based Mott Community College to sign an "interlocal agreement" in [September] 2006 establishing a separate government agency called the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. This council was directed to recommend good child care practices — and not coincidentally, to serve as a "public employer." Although the council had almost no staff, no control over the state subsidies and no supervision of the providers' daily activities, it became the shell corporation against which the union could organize.
Thus the state created an ersatz employer and an ersatz "bargaining unit" against which what was essentially an ersatz union could organize. . . . “ Michigan Forces Business Owners Into Public-Sector Union, by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, January 15, 2010.
“The Michigan Home Based Child Care Council . . . somehow -- became the intermediary between the department and a new AFSCME- and UAW-affiliated union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan.
In December 2006, AFSCME announced that the state had certified that a majority of home-based child care providers had chosen union affiliation. AFSCME said its drive to unionize child care providers encompassed eight other states, including neighboring Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. “ Forced unionization: Lawmakers should look into state's collusion in organizing babysitters, Editorial from The Detroit News, March 22, 2010.
“Last year in a complicated union deal, about 70,000 day care workers in Michigan learned they had joined a union known as Child Care Providers Together Michigan and were now working for Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. About 40,000 of those home-based day care workers have union dues to the tune of $3.7 million a year automatically deducted from their state subsidy checks. . . . State documents show that 6,396 day care workers voted and 5,921 were in support of forming a union. But the union supposedly represents the 70,000 day home-based day care workers in Michigan, not just the 40,000 who receive state subsidy checks, according to the Michigan Auditor General.” Minority Rules: Most Members of Child Care Union Didn’t Vote Themselves In, by Tom Gantert, article in the Michigan Confidential, March 1, 2010.
“Thirteen other states have pulled off the same shady scheme to surreptitiously subsidize unions in this manner and labor, with all its financial resources, would seem to have an unbeatable hand except for public interest groups like the Mackinac Center.
Individual care providers, who generally run low-budget operations, don't have the resources to fight back against such thuggery, sanctioned by their own elected representatives.
Answers needed . . .
Since the MHBCCC has indicated that it does not employ the care providers, how can these business owners be deemed employees in a labor union?
If the care providers need a license to operate a business, how can they be considered employees of a state council, which disclaims an employers' role?
And if the state does employ these people, should it also shell out the 6.2 percent federal payroll tax which employers are required to pay? [I.e., what supervisory functions does the council serve, when the “employee” vs. “independent contractor” criteria are applied, as for when Social Security taxes and Federal and state unemployment insurance taxes must be collected by the employer. Note that the day care providers file 1099 tax returns, which put them into the category of contractual workers.]”
The Mackinac Center lawsuit result is important for Michigan.
It will tell us whether our state will require transparent, fair treatment of its citizens in the future, or whether powerful special interest groups will continue to divert taxpayer dollars for their own benefit with the aid of those they helped elect.” Home Day Care Workers Should Have Fair Hearing, Frank Beckman editorial on Detroit News, April 9, 2010.
Meanwhile, the unions have responded with:
“Child care workers paid by the Michigan Department of Human Services in 2005 came to the UAW and AFCSME with a desire to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions. Over the course of several months, a majority of these child care providers signed union cards. In the fall of 2006, they voted to form their union in a state-supervised election. . . . These workers followed state law in winning union representation and then went beyond that. They first organized by "card check," a legal procedure, and gathered more than 22,000 signatures of child care providers in favor of a union, or 55 percent of the state's 40,500 child care workers at that time.
But they also petitioned the Michigan Employment Relations Commission for an election. Under the state labor law system, most elections are done by mail.
In October 2006, ballots were mailed out by MERC to every eligible voter working at that time. Of those voting, 92 percent came back in favor of a union.” Special Letter: Child Care Workers Asked for Union, by James Settles, UAW, letter printed by Detroit News, April 15, 2010.
In an interesting and connected side note,
“The Legislature last year ended payments to the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council, a liaison between the state's Department of Human Services and a controversial labor union that, under questionable circumstances, came to represent people who receive government subsidies for providing day care in their homes for children of low-income working parents. Lawmakers recently learned that Human Services officials have defied them by shifting money within the department to keep the council's $200,000 contract intact.
A Human Services spokesman said this was done because the department has a contractual obligation to fund the council through the end of this year. The spokesman also claimed that the Legislature's action, taken as part of its approval of the department's budget for 2010, did not include a specific prohibition against further payments to the council from other funds. . . . “ Forced unionization: Lawmakers should look into state's collusion in organizing babysitters, Editorial from The Detroit News, March 22, 2010.
If this practice is allowed to stand, what would prevent the same thing from happening to home health care workers whose clients receive government assistance? Pharmacists? Others? This cannot be allowed.
Rick Olson, Candidate for State Representative, 55th Legislative District
In 2009, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit (Loar v. DHS) against the state Department of Human Services on behalf of at least 40,000 home-based (business owners ) day care providers. The case challenges the union effort to designate the providers as government employees for unionization and dues-collecting purposes. The case is based on the grounds that state law presumes that no one is subject to public-sector bargaining unless state legislation has made them so, and in this case, there is no legislation — only an interlocal agreement. On December 30, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed the case without explanation. The public-interest law firm has appealed the case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Several efforts to get the state Supreme Court to hear the case are underway.
“State Representative Dave Agema, R-Grandville, has submitted a resolution asking that the Michigan Supreme Court hear a case involving home-based day care workers who say they didn't realize they were unionized by the state.” State Reps. Joining Day Care Union Case, Tom Gantert article on Michigan Confidential, April 18, 2010.
The National Federation of Independent Business has joined the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in the legal arguments to go before the Michigan Supreme Court by filing a amicus brief. A show of public support for the Michigan State Supreme Court to hear the case is important, as the Court has discretionary authority on whether to hear the case or not.
Background Articles:
“A year ago in December . . . more than 40,000 . . . home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan — a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union had won a certification election conducted by mail under the auspices of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. In that election only 6,000 day care providers voted. The pro-labor vote turned out. . . . [T]he state created an "employer" for the union to "organize" against. Of course, Michigan's independent day care providers don't work for anybody except the parents who are their customers. Nevertheless, because some of these parents qualify for public subsidies, the Child Care Providers "union" claimed the providers were "public employees."
Michigan's Department of Human Services teamed with Flint-based Mott Community College to sign an "interlocal agreement" in [September] 2006 establishing a separate government agency called the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. This council was directed to recommend good child care practices — and not coincidentally, to serve as a "public employer." Although the council had almost no staff, no control over the state subsidies and no supervision of the providers' daily activities, it became the shell corporation against which the union could organize.
Thus the state created an ersatz employer and an ersatz "bargaining unit" against which what was essentially an ersatz union could organize. . . . “ Michigan Forces Business Owners Into Public-Sector Union, by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, January 15, 2010.
“The Michigan Home Based Child Care Council . . . somehow -- became the intermediary between the department and a new AFSCME- and UAW-affiliated union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan.
In December 2006, AFSCME announced that the state had certified that a majority of home-based child care providers had chosen union affiliation. AFSCME said its drive to unionize child care providers encompassed eight other states, including neighboring Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. “ Forced unionization: Lawmakers should look into state's collusion in organizing babysitters, Editorial from The Detroit News, March 22, 2010.
“Last year in a complicated union deal, about 70,000 day care workers in Michigan learned they had joined a union known as Child Care Providers Together Michigan and were now working for Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. About 40,000 of those home-based day care workers have union dues to the tune of $3.7 million a year automatically deducted from their state subsidy checks. . . . State documents show that 6,396 day care workers voted and 5,921 were in support of forming a union. But the union supposedly represents the 70,000 day home-based day care workers in Michigan, not just the 40,000 who receive state subsidy checks, according to the Michigan Auditor General.” Minority Rules: Most Members of Child Care Union Didn’t Vote Themselves In, by Tom Gantert, article in the Michigan Confidential, March 1, 2010.
“Thirteen other states have pulled off the same shady scheme to surreptitiously subsidize unions in this manner and labor, with all its financial resources, would seem to have an unbeatable hand except for public interest groups like the Mackinac Center.
Individual care providers, who generally run low-budget operations, don't have the resources to fight back against such thuggery, sanctioned by their own elected representatives.
Answers needed . . .
Since the MHBCCC has indicated that it does not employ the care providers, how can these business owners be deemed employees in a labor union?
If the care providers need a license to operate a business, how can they be considered employees of a state council, which disclaims an employers' role?
And if the state does employ these people, should it also shell out the 6.2 percent federal payroll tax which employers are required to pay? [I.e., what supervisory functions does the council serve, when the “employee” vs. “independent contractor” criteria are applied, as for when Social Security taxes and Federal and state unemployment insurance taxes must be collected by the employer. Note that the day care providers file 1099 tax returns, which put them into the category of contractual workers.]”
The Mackinac Center lawsuit result is important for Michigan.
It will tell us whether our state will require transparent, fair treatment of its citizens in the future, or whether powerful special interest groups will continue to divert taxpayer dollars for their own benefit with the aid of those they helped elect.” Home Day Care Workers Should Have Fair Hearing, Frank Beckman editorial on Detroit News, April 9, 2010.
Meanwhile, the unions have responded with:
“Child care workers paid by the Michigan Department of Human Services in 2005 came to the UAW and AFCSME with a desire to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions. Over the course of several months, a majority of these child care providers signed union cards. In the fall of 2006, they voted to form their union in a state-supervised election. . . . These workers followed state law in winning union representation and then went beyond that. They first organized by "card check," a legal procedure, and gathered more than 22,000 signatures of child care providers in favor of a union, or 55 percent of the state's 40,500 child care workers at that time.
But they also petitioned the Michigan Employment Relations Commission for an election. Under the state labor law system, most elections are done by mail.
In October 2006, ballots were mailed out by MERC to every eligible voter working at that time. Of those voting, 92 percent came back in favor of a union.” Special Letter: Child Care Workers Asked for Union, by James Settles, UAW, letter printed by Detroit News, April 15, 2010.
In an interesting and connected side note,
“The Legislature last year ended payments to the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council, a liaison between the state's Department of Human Services and a controversial labor union that, under questionable circumstances, came to represent people who receive government subsidies for providing day care in their homes for children of low-income working parents. Lawmakers recently learned that Human Services officials have defied them by shifting money within the department to keep the council's $200,000 contract intact.
A Human Services spokesman said this was done because the department has a contractual obligation to fund the council through the end of this year. The spokesman also claimed that the Legislature's action, taken as part of its approval of the department's budget for 2010, did not include a specific prohibition against further payments to the council from other funds. . . . “ Forced unionization: Lawmakers should look into state's collusion in organizing babysitters, Editorial from The Detroit News, March 22, 2010.
If this practice is allowed to stand, what would prevent the same thing from happening to home health care workers whose clients receive government assistance? Pharmacists? Others? This cannot be allowed.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Improving the Business Climate to Create Jobs
None of these ideas include the government directly creating a job (which would have to be paid for by higher taxes) but improving the business climate to create the atmosphere for entrepreneurship, innovation and risk-taking by businesses trying new things.
This local approach to Right-to-Work could be the means to bit by bit improve the image of the state as anti-business/anti-jobs, and make the state more competitive. Local Right-to-Work [Mackinac Center] Feb. 25, 2010
This editorial clearly paints the difference between the parties' approaches to turning Michigan around. The "Spenders" (aka the "Tax and Spenders") plan does nothing to encourage job growth, but only supports the public employees' jobs. We must do better than that. It's Reformers vs. Spenders in state faceoff From the Detroit News. Jan. 28, 2010
Now here are some great New Year's resolutions worth making AND keeping. Michigan's 2010 New Year's resolutions State must say goodbye to its lost decade and start new year on a more productive path. From the Detroit News. Dec. 31, 2009
In this philosophical debate on how best to create jobs, I come down on the side of creating a better business climate for all businesses in Michigan, encouraging all businesses to flourish, to harness the entrepreneurial spirit and innovativeness that made Michigan the envy of the world years ago. I simply do not believe that bureaucrats in Lansing can pick the winners better than the best minds in business and finance who are risking their own money and careers with their investment choices. Sharing Ideas for a Better Michigan: Bureaucrats Should Not be Picking Winners and Losers in Our Fre Dec. 29, 2009
This local approach to Right-to-Work could be the means to bit by bit improve the image of the state as anti-business/anti-jobs, and make the state more competitive. Local Right-to-Work [Mackinac Center] Feb. 25, 2010
This editorial clearly paints the difference between the parties' approaches to turning Michigan around. The "Spenders" (aka the "Tax and Spenders") plan does nothing to encourage job growth, but only supports the public employees' jobs. We must do better than that. It's Reformers vs. Spenders in state faceoff From the Detroit News. Jan. 28, 2010
Now here are some great New Year's resolutions worth making AND keeping. Michigan's 2010 New Year's resolutions State must say goodbye to its lost decade and start new year on a more productive path. From the Detroit News. Dec. 31, 2009
In this philosophical debate on how best to create jobs, I come down on the side of creating a better business climate for all businesses in Michigan, encouraging all businesses to flourish, to harness the entrepreneurial spirit and innovativeness that made Michigan the envy of the world years ago. I simply do not believe that bureaucrats in Lansing can pick the winners better than the best minds in business and finance who are risking their own money and careers with their investment choices. Sharing Ideas for a Better Michigan: Bureaucrats Should Not be Picking Winners and Losers in Our Fre Dec. 29, 2009
Posts to Facebook re Michigan's Budget Crisis
Tax hike won't solve budget woes Governor's proposal courts failure by avoiding more long-term ref detnews.com Feb. 24, 2010
It is not my nature to be confrontational, but any cost cutting measures at the state level that do not address the excessively high cost of public employee wages and benefits will not be a long-term solution. They must be brought down to private sector equivalents.
School, Government Employee Unions Drain Their Host
By Jack McHugh, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy Feb. 23, 2010
The union's choice of retaining high salary and benefit levels instead of retaining service levels for Wayne County residents is not a viable long-term solution. It's time for public sector unions to wake up and smell the coffee brewing in Michigan. http://www.detnews.com/ Feb. 23, 2010
The Governor's Proposed Budget includes a tax increase without sufficient savings from salaries and benefits from state and public school employees. The Legislature must do better. Editorial: Balance Michigan budget with labor cost savings Feb. 14, 2010
Unions bleed taxpayers to help Democrats, http://www.detnews.com/ Feb. 9, 2010
For more, go to my Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/#!/olson48176?ref=profile
Cheers! Rick
It is not my nature to be confrontational, but any cost cutting measures at the state level that do not address the excessively high cost of public employee wages and benefits will not be a long-term solution. They must be brought down to private sector equivalents.
School, Government Employee Unions Drain Their Host
By Jack McHugh, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy Feb. 23, 2010
The union's choice of retaining high salary and benefit levels instead of retaining service levels for Wayne County residents is not a viable long-term solution. It's time for public sector unions to wake up and smell the coffee brewing in Michigan. http://www.detnews.com/ Feb. 23, 2010
The Governor's Proposed Budget includes a tax increase without sufficient savings from salaries and benefits from state and public school employees. The Legislature must do better. Editorial: Balance Michigan budget with labor cost savings Feb. 14, 2010
Unions bleed taxpayers to help Democrats, http://www.detnews.com/ Feb. 9, 2010
For more, go to my Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/#!/olson48176?ref=profile
Cheers! Rick
Taxes and Spending – the Perennial Issues
Here is an excerpt from the February 2010 Washtenaw Republican Informer, of which I am a co-editor and which may be accessed on the Washtenaw Republican Party website:
Read “Where We Are and How We Got There”, Feb. 17, 2010, by Mitch Bean, with the House Fiscal Agency. This is not fun reading, but a good summary of the State's fiscal status. What is missing, however, are options for cost controls and job growth which help solve the revenue shortfalls. For good starts, see:
Read “Where We Are and How We Got There”, Feb. 17, 2010, by Mitch Bean, with the House Fiscal Agency. This is not fun reading, but a good summary of the State's fiscal status. What is missing, however, are options for cost controls and job growth which help solve the revenue shortfalls. For good starts, see:
- Republican Senate Reform Package which could potentially save the state more than $2 billion.
House Republican Strategic Task Force on Jobs
The Michigan 2010 Small Business Agenda
The Michigan Turnaround Plan, by the Business Leaders for Michigan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
