Commentary

UAW Video Shows Political Influence

Proposal 2 on Michigan’s Nov. 6 general election ballot, once called by its union-funders the “Protect Our Jobs Amendment,” would enshrine collective bargaining privileges for government employees into the state constitution, effectively giving provisions of government labor contracts primacy over laws passed by the people’s duly elected representatives in Lansing and signed by the governor.

This radical proposal and a campaign ad promoting it (called “Rescue”) calls to mind a video shot by the Saginaw-based UAW Local 699 and shown at a December 1999 “worker-to-worker” event urging members to vote for union-backed candidates.

In this video the speaker describes the clout unions have with their preferred candidates, and the benefits accruing to members if those candidates are elected:

Earlier this week I ran into Judge [Lynda] Heathscott and you know she quickly came up and shook my hand and was talking to me and all of that other good stuff and started talking about Mark Gaffney out of Teamsters being elected president of the AFL-CIO and basically said “I was elected judge because of the labor movement, period.”

When we send letters to Judge Heathscott because we have people that are going to go in front of her, for whatever reason, she always comes down in a more favorable position for us. Now she might give them a long probation; she might give them a stiff fine, most generally they don’t wind up doing jail time and some other things because that letter came from the UAW and she knows who got her elected.

Ms. Heathscott was a Saginaw County circuit court judge who left the bench in 2008 to become a “referee” in the Saginaw Friend of the Court office.

Needless to say, such a statement raises serious question regarding the goals and outcomes of union political activity of the sort the UAW has for decades relentlessly pursued. Maybe the comments made on the tape amounted to simple bravado on the part of the speaker, but maybe they did not. Maybe the UAW expects special treatment under the law for its members.

In 2008, another UAW-supported initiative raised more questions. This sweeping measure, called “Reform Michigan Government Now,” was designed to remake the state constitution. This time, the game was given away by a PowerPoint presentation discovered by the Mackinac Center on a UAW website, the subtitle of which was, “Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to help Democrats.”

Courts ultimately ruled that the measure violated state rules and could not appear on the ballot. However, this year’s Proposal 2 will be on the ballot, and if anything it’s even more radical. Among other things it would repeal a law that prohibits unions from taking money from a government employee’s paycheck to pay for political contributions unless the union first obtains the worker’s written permission (“paycheck protection”).

While Proposal 2 primarily affects law overseeing government unions, it would also prohibit the legislature from ever passing a right-to-work law that bans private-sector employers from making union membership or fee payments a condition of employment.

On the public-sector side, according to one estimate, some 170 state laws regulating government employees and unions would be invalidated in part or in whole.

The UAW video posted above just hints at the degree of power labor unions have and try to operate amongst the political class for institutional gain. Should Proposal 2 pass, union bosses like the one featured above would only fortify their positions and at great cost to taxpayers across the Great Lake State.

Proposal 2 would surely accomplish the desire of government union bosses to protect their jobs.

But given the extremely negative message it sends to prospective employers, it could terminate Michigan’s nascent economic recovery, generating a very different outcome for the rest of our jobs

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.

News Story

Gov. Snyder Could Replace Board That Helped Facilitate Forced Unionization Of Home-Based Caregivers

If Proposal 4 passes, constitutional amendment would lock in current union-stacked board

Time is running out for Gov. Rick Snyder to replace before Election Day the union-stacked Michigan Quality Community Care Council board.

Replacing the board that oversees the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3), the dummy employer created as part of a scheme by the Service Employees International Union to help unionize about 44,000 home-based caregivers in Michigan, could give the governor a measure of control over the situation if Proposal 4 were to pass in November.

Proposal 4, which Gov. Snyder opposes, is an attempt to lock the forced unionization of Michigan's home-based caregivers into the constitution. According to the wording of Proposal 4, those on the MQC3 board before the election would automatically get four-year terms on the board of a new entity called the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). If the governor doesn't act and the proposal passes, he would no longer have the authority to replace them.

Gov. Snyder is considering taking action on replacing members of the MQC3 board, said Sara Wurfel, the governor's press secretary.

"This is something under close review and assessment, and we're exploring options," she said.

In 2005, the SEIU targeted Michigan's share of the federal Home Help Program as a dues-producing source. Under the federal Home Help Program, elderly patients and others suffering from various ailments can be cared for at home instead of being placed in nursing homes or other long-term care facilities.

The SEIU pulled off its scam by taking advantage of Michigan's first unionization that was conducted through the mail. As a result, the SEIU has been taking money from the Medicaid checks of the elderly and disabled for about seven years. To date, more than $32 million has been taken by the SEIU.

"I would hope the governor would do this before the deadline," said Wendy Day, of Common Sense in Government. "If he has the chance to put responsible leadership on the board, he should do it.

"Everyone knows this is a scam," Day said. "If it turns out that we can't fix it, I would hope the governor would take advantage of any opportunity to mitigate the damage."

Earlier this year, Gov. Snyder signed a law making the unionization illegal because the workers are not state employees. The SEIU took the issue to federal court and said it was a "First Amendment advocacy organization" that would suffer "irreparable damage" if the money flow stopped. U.S. District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds ruled in the union's favor.

The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation has filed a case with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission against the SEIU over unfair labor practices. The legal action asks MERC to reverse the decision that recognized the forced unionization of those workers nearly seven years ago. It also asks that the money being taken for dues be immediately ended and for the return of about six months' worth of dues, or about $3 million.

"Everything that can be done to fight this situation should be done," said Gene Clem, of the Southwest Michigan Tea Party Patriots. "I think that this (replacing the MQC3 board) would be an excellent step for the governor to take." 

Ironically, Snyder now has the opportunity to make the SEIU's dummy employer into an entity that could at least approximate a real employer. He could replace the MQC3 board with members who would no longer do the SEIU's bidding. The SEIU has funneled money to the MQC3 and the union works closely with the MQC3's executive director, who can't work more than 3 hours a month so she can continue to collect unemployement benefits.

Dohn Hoyle, who is a member of the current MQC3 board, also is treasurer and co-chairman of the "Keep Home Care Safe" campaign, which is the group behind the effort promoting Proposal 4. He also heads Home Care First Inc., which has provided $1.84 million to the campaign committee for Proposal 4. Hoyle also is executive director of The Arc Michigan and under Hoyle's direction, the Arc donated $50,000 to the MQC3 this past spring.

Proposal 4 backers try to give the impression that the union got three pay increases for the home-based caregivers. It didn't. When pressed on this subject, defenders of the forced unionization simply repeat the claim that the SEIU achieved that for workers.

The MQC3, which has admitted it is not the employer of the home-based caregivers, has had no ability to give the caregivers a raise and neither would the MQHCC, the new entity that would be created if Proposal 4 passes.

Only the legislature has the ability to boost the value of the Medicaid checks that home-based caregivers receive. At most, the SEIU could lobby for an increase. Receiving a percentage of the caregivers' Medicaid checks for lobbying would be like activists who lobby on behalf of welfare recipients receiving money deducted from welfare checks and food stamps.

Of the three pay increases home-based caregivers have received since 2005, two were tied to increases in the minimum wage. Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm lobbied for and got the other increase, which was regionally-based and not uniform.

Gov. Snyder clearly understands the dangers of this ballot proposal being locked into the state constitution and relayed his opposition in a press release and video explaining why he's against Proposal 4.

"Proposal 4 creates a slippery slope," Gov. Snyder said in a statement posted on the governor's website. "Anyone else who receives a direct or indirect payment from the government may be involuntarily enlisted into a union, as well."

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.