Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,959 posts)
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 06:56 PM Jan 2012

Minn. child care providers file suit challenging compulsory unionization

A group of Minnesota home-based child care providers have filed a federal lawsuit to halt an order forcing them to unionize.

Jennifer Parrish from Rochester filed the suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation Legal Defense Foundation.

Gov. Mark Dayton's executive order would designate the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Service Employees International Union officials as the collective bargaining and political representatives of thousands of providers in the state.

This action closely follows a similar lawsuit by home-based child care and personal care providers in Michigan. NRWLDF attorneys argue that such schemes violate the providers' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, association, and petition of government guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. They claim that the government does not have the power to force citizens to accept the government's choice of union representation.

full: http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/234960-minn.-child-care-providers-file-suit-challenging-compulsory-unionization

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Minn. child care providers file suit challenging compulsory unionization (Original Post) alp227 Jan 2012 OP
I'm pro-union SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2012 #1
I didn't see anything in the article that explained what "forced to unionize" meant. cheapdate Jan 2012 #2
I would think, that is a way to limit home childcare, as it can avoid most taxes. WingDinger Jan 2012 #3
Not so easy to avoid taxes SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2012 #4

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
1. I'm pro-union
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:00 PM
Jan 2012

But I don't necessarily agree with home-based child care providers having to be unionized. They should certainly be free to join, but a home based daycare is a different animal, IMO.

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
2. I didn't see anything in the article that explained what "forced to unionize" meant.
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:17 PM
Jan 2012

If the plaintiffs are indeed being forced by the government to become active, dues-paying members of a union, then my tentative reaction is to be opposed. If it's something less than that, i.e. the plaintiffs will somehow be represented by the union without actually being forced to become active, dues-paying members, then that's different.

Not enough factual, details are provided by the article. I support and appreciate labor unions.

 

WingDinger

(3,690 posts)
3. I would think, that is a way to limit home childcare, as it can avoid most taxes.
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:18 PM
Jan 2012

or they were lobbied by large care providers. To unduly burden the small fry.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
4. Not so easy to avoid taxes
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:22 PM
Jan 2012

If parents want to take the child care credit, they have to report the tax id number of the provider. If the provider doesn't report the income, pretty good chance it will be flagged.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Minn. child care provider...