Browsing articles in "Unions"
Dec 2, 2011

Childcare Unionization Update

Here is a quick recap on the latest news regarding Governor Mark Dayton’s illegal effort to unionize independent small childcare businesses via executive order:

1)      Childcare workers after protesting at a rally and speaking at four different legislative hearings have brought a lawsuit against Governor Dayton and the Bureau of Mediation Services to prevent the forced unionization election by executive order of all 11,000 in-home childcare providers in the state of Minnesota while only allowing approximately 4300 to vote. The brief makes what Education Liberty Watch sees as a compelling argument that the executive order is illegal and unconstitutional under both Minnesota and federal law.

  • See a discussion of the press conference for the lawsuit here and a copy of the actual complaint here.
  • See video of the November 21st House Commerce Committee hearing chaired by Rep. Joe Hoppe here. The union representatives after being unable to answer any questions at previous hearings failed to come to this hearing at all and the head of the Bureau of Mediation Services who did come was unable to definitively cite any statute providing authority for this election.
  • Listen to audio of the October 24th House Health and Services Policy Committee hearing here. and listen to audio of the October 24th House Commerce hearing here. (Follow links for October 24th hearings).
  • See video of the full September 21st Senate joint Government Operations and Health and Human Services committee  here and a 13 minute excerpt here.

2)      Just hours ago, the Senate Rules Committee chaired by Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Buffalo) voted to join this lawsuit by filing an amicus (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the these brave daycare providers. For details see this Politics in Minnesota article. Senator Dick Cohen (DFL-St. Paul) tried to make the committee’s decision about politics.  Senators  Koch, David Hann (R-Eden Prairie), and Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove) did an excellent job of citing the fact that the governor is usurping legislative authority and legislating by executive order.

3)      A rally to show support the rights of these independent small business owners to remain free to provide their services without union or further government interference is planned for Saturday, December 3rd at 12 Noon at the Minnesota State Capitol rotunda. Please come and show your support for these business providers and parents. If Governor Dayton and the unions succeed in implementing this union by executive order, childcare costs will increase for parents already struggling in this difficult economy and other private businesses will potentially come under this forced unionization scheme both of which has happened in other states. For more details, please see and then distribute the rally flyer.

For more details please see our last alert and the Childcare Freedom website.


Nov 17, 2011

Union + QRS = Increased Costs, Bureaucracy + Decreased Freedom, Choice

Sadly, by setting a vote on childcare unionization by executive order on November 15th, Governor Mark Dayton has again involved himself in another unconstitutional/illegal effort to pay off political cronies, expand government, usurp parental authority, and harm small business.

The governor ordered the Bureau of Mediation Services to do a mail-in ballot, but only of childcare providers that serve children who receive government subsidies for their care. This means that the approximately 4,000 provider minority that already has a stake in government subsidies and programs and is more likely to support unionization, will then be able to make this momentous decision to form a statewide childcare union for the entire group of 11,000 childcare providers in the whole state of Minnesota.

The executive order states that no one will have to join a union or pay dues if the vote is in favor of unionization. What is not stated is that the decisions made by the group that does involve itself in negotiating with the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services will affect ALL childcare providers in the state. In addition, there has been no concrete delineation by union proponents about fair share dues that could well be charged to those who do not join or that dues may well be extracted directly from the government subsidy payments before going to the already underpaid childcare providers. No union proponents have been able to refute the obvious – that because of these kinds of issues, costs will increase and access to affordable childcare will decrease.

Popular opinion is certainly against this move by the governor. In a November 7th Survey USA political poll commissioned by KSTP, one of the questions was, “Should daycare workers in the state of Minnesota form labor unions and be considered public employees?” The response was overwhelmingly against this idea. Overall there was 68% opposed and 19% in favor with 13% not sure. Even in the liberal and Democratic demographics the opposition was 52% and 60% respectively with support being only in the teens.

All of this is quite analogous and directly related to the governor’s rogue decision to unilaterally expand the quality rating system (QRS) using federal money, despite near unanimous votes by the legislative majorities against doing so during the 2011 regular and special sessions. As Education Liberty Watch warned during the session and stated in our  analysis of Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge, which seeks to greatly expand the QRS system in Minnesota and across the nation, when childcare providers need to be rated in order to receive scholarships and other government subsidies, these workers will be considered public employees and as in other states, subject to unionization. These QRSs are not the touted “Consumer Reports” style information sources for parents about childcare, but rather a tangled, bureaucratic, and expensive government takeover of private childcare that in the prescient words of a former Democrat Assistant Attorney General back in 1994 will more than likely “restrict entry, limit competition, reduce access, limit parental choice, and increase cost.” Continue reading »