Michelle Malkin » First, the unions came for home-care providers. Next, they came for babysitters…

First, the unions came for home-care providers. Next, they came for babysitters…

By Michelle Malkin • October 5, 2009 01:03 PM

In Illinois, in-home providers who care for the developmentally disabled are battling an aggressive power grab by the SEIU Purple Army and its Democrat enablers.

In Michigan, the unions are going after…home-based child care workers.

That’s right.

Last month, the Mackinac Center blew the whistle on the scheme and filed suit against the Michigan Department of Human Services to prevent illegal siphoning of so-called “union dues” from state child care assistance payments to home-based day care providers. Instead of an executive order, the Michigan government abetted the unions by creating a “shell” corporation through the use of an “interlocal agreement” between the state’s DHS and a local community College. Here’s the deal:

The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, a newly created public-interest law firm, today filed suit against the Michigan Department of Human Services in a case where a “shell corporation” was established to shanghai more than 40,000 home-based day care business owners into a government employees union. On behalf of two owners, Sherry Loar and Dawn Ives, the MCLF filed an action at the Michigan Court of Appeals seeking to stop the DHS from improperly siphoning “union dues” out of state subsidy checks meant to provide assistance to low-income parents.

“The DHS, UAW and AFSCME have devised a scheme to siphon $3.7 million into union bank accounts,” said Wright. “They’ve done this by concocting a new government entity that they allege transforms 40,000 home-based private contractors into government employees and union members. If Sherry and Dawn are government employees simply because a few of their customers receive government aid, then doctors, landlords and independent grocers can’t be far behind.”

To achieve this massive increase in government employees, the DHS and unions appear to have created a shell corporation using an interlocal agreement between the agency and Mott Community College, a move that Wright criticized as extraconstitutional.

“If the state is determined to place these day care providers in a union, it needs an act of the Legislature,” said Wright. “Two government agencies cannot conjure up the power to change the law simply because they are working together.”

Both plaintiffs enjoy running their own businesses, and both provide an important service to parents and children in their community. They do not work for the state of Michigan, and aside from the parents who hire them, they do not work for an employer. Although they describe themselves as long-time union supporters, Loar and Ives were shocked last year when they received notification in the mail that they were considered dues-paying members of the Child Care Providers Together Michigan union.

“I’m not opposed to unions; everything has a place,” said Loar. “But when we enter my door, this is my home.”

Video interviews with the plaintiffs and all background legal documents can be found here and here.

A formal reply to the lawsuit is due on October 7.

Who’s next? Pay attention.

The Culture of Corruption has never hit so close to home.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: SEIU,Unions

Printer Friendly

comments (31)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

#1

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

“Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead!”
#2

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

Babysitting is now a government job.
#3

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm, Tennessee Dave said:

To me it would seem this is easy to counter. Each independant day care provider, upon notification by this letter, should have provided a response that has been certified by a notary public.
The response should read:
The employees of this business were given ballots with the choice of being unionized or not unionized. Enclosed is a copy of the ballot. As you can see the vote was 100% against unionization with a vote total of one (1) against and zero (0) for unionization.
#4

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

Who’s next?

The neighborhood kid who mows lawns so he can buy a new bike?
Good grief.
#5

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm, Hangfire said:

Brilliant! Illegal, but brilliant.
#6

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm, letget said:

These unions will go as far as they can if they are not stopped. They will worm their way into every aspect of our lives if they can. It seems the elected are just all to happy to see they get what they want. All the money the elected gets from the unions make it all ok.
L
#7

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm, Rob said:

At my job I am FORCED to belong to the union. They take my money right out of my paycheck and use it for their nefarious liberal purposes. Obama got elected partially with MY money!
#8

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pm, Southpaw said:

“If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.”
Vladimir Lenin
#9

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, wendy said:

Well up in here in MA they are looking to unionize day care workers by calling them “educators” and this is not to knock day care providers but they are not necessarily “educators”. New regs are requiring “day-care center providers to complete progress reports on tiny tots, prepare them for kindergarten and even oversee their teeth-brushing…”

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1200746

When will the nanny let go?
#10

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm, tre said:

improperly siphoning “union dues” out of state subsidy checks meant to provide assistance to low-income parents.

That sounds like embezzlment to me.
#11

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:03 pm, Truesoldier said:

If Sherry and Dawn are government employees simply because a few of their customers receive government aid, then doctors, landlords and independent grocers can’t be far behind.”

I think that this quote has hit the nail on the head. The libs have found a new way to achieve their socialistic workers utopia.
#12

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pm, CW4_KGP said:

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:
Babysitting is now a government job.

Does this mean we have to hire developmentally challenged and physically challeged people to take care of our children?

This might need some serious thought, not just a bunch of money grubbing power hungry liberals trying to shape the world in the image of failure.

R//

CW4
#13

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

I guess anything worth doing in life must be done by government.
#14

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, happyscrapper said:

On October 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm, Dexter Alarius said:
Who’s next?

The neighborhood kid who mows lawns so he can buy a new bike?
Good grief.

Or the neighbor who watches after the kids for a short time while they wait for a school bus? Have you heard about it? She takes the kids into her home if the weather is bad while they wait for the school bus that stops by her house. This is an UNPAID FAVOR to her neighbors. Yet, she got a call from the authorities saying she had to stop, or get a day-care license. Someone called them…lord knows who would do such a thing! If she doesn’t comply, she will be fined and/or thrown in jail. For helping her neighbors! If it was me, I would defy the order and keep doing what I was doing. FOX News was all over this story and a lot of people now have her back.
#15

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm, graysonret said:

Happyscrapper, I think that was in England. However, it shows how ridiculous it can become. Won’t be long before the “comrade” and the “block watcher”.
#16

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm, rightwingrocker said:

Or the neighbor who watches after the kids for a short time while they wait for a school bus? Have you heard about it? She takes the kids into her home if the weather is bad while they wait for the school bus that stops by her house. This is an UNPAID FAVOR to her neighbors. Yet, she got a call from the authorities saying she had to stop, or get a day-care license. Someone called them…lord knows who would do such a thing! If she doesn’t comply, she will be fined and/or thrown in jail. For helping her neighbors! If it was me, I would defy the order and keep doing what I was doing. FOX News was all over this story and a lot of people now have her back.

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs in which something like this isn’t surprising.

Typical union thuggery.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
#17

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm, spaceycakes said:

This is going to be so hard on the Beaver.
#18

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm, rightwingrocker said:

At my job I am FORCED to belong to the union. They take my money right out of my paycheck and use it for their nefarious liberal purposes. Obama got elected partially with MY money!

One of the many reasons I exercised my freedom of choice and left the teaching profession.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
#19

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm, RedDog said:

What the $@#&**! Is this a RICO case or what? We’re overrun with little Che wannabes.
#20

On October 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm, dan708 said:

I keep waiting to see if someone will rub out this Stern character. He and his organization are going to the Nth degree with their naked ambitions. I’m guessing that Mr. Stern has heavy security by now…
#21

On October 5th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

Or the neighbor who watches after the kids for a short time while they wait for a school bus? Have you heard about it?

Yeah, I heard about that. Unbelievable.

Someone called (the authorities)…lord knows who would do such a thing!

Oh, I know. Some Liberal busy-body ‘government knows best’ Obama voter. It takes a ~~village~~ union.
#22

On October 5th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, happy2behere said:

Who’s next? Anyone who gets a check from the government to provide a service, as this example shows.
#23

On October 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, englishqueen01 said:

Happyscrapper, I think that was in England. However, it shows how ridiculous it can become. Won’t be long before the “comrade” and the “block watcher”.

No…that’s going on in MICHIGAN.
#24

On October 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, happy2behere said:

Just look at how the communist party operates in China and then compare and contrast how unions work in our country. You will also be able to see the future of labor. Soon your party/union boss will be telling you where you can work and live.
#25

On October 5th, 2009 at 4:08 pm, purplepeep said:

Why not criminalize babysitters? Obama’s already made having a garage sale a likely crime-in-progress.

“Americans who slap $1 pricetags on their used possessions at garage sales or bazaar events risk being slapped with fines of up to $15 million, thanks to a new government campaign.”:
Fox news

I’m waiting for a Federal crackdown on kids who run a lemonade stand. Amy Carter got out of that business just in time!
#26

On October 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pm, graysonret said:

Okay…Seems the same thing is also going on in England. Just babysitting a neighbor’s child for a couple of hours, requires a criminal background check and a license, or face a hefty fine. I guess Michigan is trying to catch up.
#27

On October 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, purplepeep said:

englishqueen01 said:

“I think that was in England. However, it shows how ridiculous it can become. Won’t be long before the “comrade” and the “block watcher”.”

No…that’s going on in MICHIGAN.

Yup, you’re correct, EQ1:

State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors’ kids
#28

On October 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, WarEagle82 said:

I have to pass a background check to volunteer in Sunday School at my church. I don’t mind doing it but it is a sign of how far things have changed since I was a kid.
#29

On October 5th, 2009 at 7:20 pm, happyscrapper said:

On October 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, englishqueen01 said:
Happyscrapper, I think that was in England. However, it shows how ridiculous it can become. Won’t be long before the “comrade” and the “block watcher”.

No…that’s going on in MICHIGAN.

I didn’t think the woman had an English accent!
#30

On October 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pm, happyscrapper said:

I hope they find out who called the authorities on that woman in Michigan. It must have been someone in the same neighborhood. Whoever did it might be the recipient of a little burning poop on her porch on Halloween. I’m just saying…
#31

On October 5th, 2009 at 7:57 pm, CJ said:

Since these ladies are now considered government employees, I hope the lawsuit includes a demand for Michigan to pay the benefits state government employees are entitled to — things like the state paying the employer portion of SS, state-provided health insurance, paid vacation and sick leave, retirement program matching funds…

Let’s see, 40,000 new government workers times thousands of dollars per each one equals a few hundred million or so. Good thing Michigan’s budget is so flush with cash these days.