Like CapCon on Facebook
Follow CapCon on XCourt of Appeals Says Union Power Grab Should Be on Ballot
Opponents say they will appeal to State Supreme Court
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the so-called “Protect Our Jobs” ballot proposal should be put on the Nov. 6 statewide ballot.
A motion will be filed immediately asking the State Supreme Court to overrule the lower court, said Gary Gordon, the attorney for Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, the coalition of business groups opposing the proposal.
The State Supreme Court can be expected to do one of three things.
-
It could refuse to address the issue, which would result in the proposal being put on the ballot;
-
It could address the issue and uphold the Court of Appeals, which would also result in the proposal being placed on the ballot; or
-
It could overturn the lower court decision and prevent the proposal from being placed on the ballot.
"We are confident that the Supreme Court will agree with the Board of Canvassers, the Attorney General, the Governor and residents across the state — Michigan voters deserve honesty and transparency at the ballot box and from the start this deceptive proposal has not given them either," said Rich Studley, president and CEO of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. "We will continue the fight on behalf of Michigan residents to protect Michigan's Constitution."
Whatever the high court decides, it must act quickly. Aug. 27 was the deadline the Secretary of State had recommended the courts adhere to regarding this year's ballot proposal rulings. All the proposals that are going to appear on the statewide ballot need to be ready by Sept. 7 so that absentee ballots can be printed.
A coalition of unions is backing the proposal with at least $8 million.
"The court ruling is a disappointment and may allow special interests to fundamentally change how Michigan is governed," said F. Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. "If the amendment passes, union contracts would supersede many state laws.
"It is also noteworthy that some supporters of the amendment are attempting to bully the Supreme Court before the case has even been heard," Vernuccio said. "Over the weekend, Gongwer News Service reported that several 'Democratic sources' threatened to use the money already raised for the ballot proposal against Supreme Court justices who are up for re-election if the court does not put the proposal on the ballot. While supporters have a First Amendment right to spend money on elections, this is a clear attempt to get the justices to stop considering the law and to start considering the politics. This should not be tolerated."
If passed, the proposal would pre-empt Michigan from ever becoming a right-to-work state. Under right-to-work laws, employees are given the freedom to choose if they want to pay dues or fees to a union.
In addition, if adopted, it is estimated the proposal could repeal — to varying degrees —about 170 Michigan laws and numerous parts of the state constitution.
Opponents of the proposal say it should not be placed on the ballot because it would do too many different things to be adequately described in the 100 words or less required for ballot language. In addition, opponents also say the proposal failed to identify every portion of the State Constitution it would affect.
However, in 2-to-1 decision, the three-judge Court of Appeals panel, disagreed.
Presiding Court of Appeals Judge Donald Owens and Judge Ronayne Krause ruled in part:
“ . . . if an effect is held to be enough to trigger the republication requirement, the courts would be adding an undue burden to the initiative process not mandated by the constitution. The constitution, statutes, and case law control and preclude us from adding an additional hurdle, particularly a requirement never contemplated by the framers, to the people's right to amend their constitution."
Judge Peter D. O'Connell disagreed, arguing that the proposal, "drastically abrogates, alters, and nullifies numerous existing provisions of our constitution." He also said the petition that was circulated for the collection of signatures "does not inform the voters of these drastic changes.
". . .the proposal should not be placed on the ballot," O'Connell said.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Hydra-Lock employees vote to decertify their union
Right-to-work no longer rules in private sector
Michigan House bill would allow college athletes to unionize, at an unknown cost
SEIU Ballot Language Disconnected From Reality
The director of elections for the state of Michigan has released the wording for most of the proposals expected to be on the ballot in November. The proposed constitutional amendment relating to home-based caregivers shows how groups can push innocuous-sounding language to do something extremely damaging.
Let’s go through it line-by-line.
This proposal would:
This is the key part of the proposal. The "exclusive representative" is the SEIU. “Allow” does not mean home health care workers can choose whether or not to band together and lobby the state. “Allow” means some segment can decide to force all of the 60,000 or so home health care workers to pay dues to the SEIU, which can spend the money lobbying or on other activities — even if those other providers do not want to join the union. The word “allow” can be changed to “force” and the meaning of this part of the proposal stays the same.
This entity (MQC3) already exists, the training is already happening, the registry can be found online and patients already receive financial help to hire caregivers.
Patients can already hire any of the workers who are not on the MQCCC registry. There are tens of thousands of home health care workers in the state with an estimated 75 percent taking care of family or close friends. Only 933 people are on the current registry.
The state has never considered these types of workers to be state employees. In fact, the legislature passed and the governor signed a new law explicitly stating that these private contractors are not state employees.
Home health care workers are hired by the people for whom they provide services, not for the MQHCC or the state. In the paperwork it provides to the people they train, the MQC3 says, "We are not your employer. The Consumer is your employer."
This proposal is a radical departure from what the state usually considers to be government employees. By this logic, doctors in Michigan would be state employees for receiving Medicare and Medicaid money. Grocery store owners would be state employees for accepting food stamps. Day care owners would be state employees for looking after low-income children (actually that scheme was already tried).
In sum, this ballot initiative speaks mostly about several things totally uncontroversial that already exist so that one section with harmless-sounding language can be slipped in. This would allow for the continued skimming of tens of millions of dollars from caregivers to the SEIU, which to date has taken more than $31 million from workers.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Want to support our work?
Help us tell the free market, limited government side of the story. Support Capitol Confidential today
Make a gift! Already a supporter
More From CapCon