The Service Employees International Union is renewing its efforts to take money from the paychecks of Michigan residents who care for dependents at home. Michigan Capitol Confidential recently talked with two caregivers who have firsthand knowledge of the union’s effort to revive a scheme from decades past.

The SEIU for many years targeted people who received payments from a state health care program for taking care of their loved ones at home. The union skimmed an estimated $34 million from home caregivers, most of whom were caring for their own relatives. Many were not even aware that they had been pushed into the union. Although lawmakers ended the dues skim in 2013, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation last October restoring the practice. The union is now actively pursuing new dues-payers around the state.

Michigan Capitol Confidential spoke with Barbara, a Wayne County resident who asked that her last name and city not be disclosed. A union representative visited her house recently on two separate occasions, she said. Barbara cares for her special needs daughter, an adult, at home.

When Barbara didn’t answer the door, the union workers left literature. Later, two representatives arrived in separate vehicles to visit her.

The two union recruiters, Barbara told CapCon, said she should sign up for union representation because it could mean more money for her. But the SEIU has no power to negotiate contracts for home caregivers, whose compensation is decided by the legislature. The union reps left after Barbara gave them a firm no.

Jeanne Delph of Cheboygan County provides full-time care for her adult son, who has special needs. In 2005, the union started taking part of her paycheck without her authorization. She tried to reclaim the money then but did not succeed.

The SEIU quietly swept 60,000 home-based caregivers into its ranks in 2005, assisted by a mechanism established under Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Caregivers who did not consent to withdrawals saw the union take money from their paychecks in a practice the Mackinac Center for Public Policy dubbed a dues skim.

Home caregivers enjoyed protection from the dues skim for 11 years after the state ended the practice.

Last fall, lawmakers reestablished the legal mechanism by which the union could enroll caregivers as members and collect dues. It's not as easy for unions to take that money, however, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, which protects public sector employees from being required to join a union as a condition of employment.

Barbara told CapCon that classifying her and others like her as public employees doesn’t make sense. If she has an employer, she said, it’s her child, not the government. Her child, who receives a stipend from the government, is the one who hires the caregiver.

The union did not respond to an email seeking comment.

If you or someone you know have been visited by the SEIU, please contact CapCon with your story. The Mackinac Center can also help you as a caregiver understand your rights.

More than 40 Park Township residents testified at a special Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on March 31 to urge members to grandfather in properties used as short-term rentals.

The nonprofit group, Park Township Neighbors, which formed in response to the Ottawa County township’s ban on short-term rentals, led the charge.

The group is asking the board to interpret the township’s zoning ordinance in a way that would grant “non-conforming use” status to homeowners. Non-conforming use means those who owned short-term rentals before the township started enforcing its ordinance can continue with the practice.

The nonprofit asserted that Park Township officials had historically allowed and even encouraged short-term rentals for decades, only reversing that stance during the COVID pandemic.

Michigan Capitol Confidential previously reported that in November 2022, the township board voted to enforce the 1974 law.

During the nearly four-hour hearing, residents delivered personal testimonies and presented legal arguments backed by sworn depositions, emails and township communications.

Jeremy Allen is the president of the Park Township Neighbors. He told CapCon in an email that Kyle Konwinski, the organization’s lawyer, pointed out at the hearing an inconsistency in the township’s argument that a 1974 zoning law has always prevented short-term rentals.

He asked if the 1974 law always banned short-term rentals, then why did the township vote in March 2024 to change the zoning ordinance to say the rentals are not allowed.

Allen argued that if the 1974 ordinance prevents short-term rentals, the township would not have changed the ordinance.

Park Township officials did not respond to an email seeking comment.

In an email to CapCon, Allen mentioned page 8 of the township’s request for a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The request reads in part:

“It has long been common throughout West Michigan (particularly on lakes) for the past century or so for families to rent out their cottages or cabins for a few weeks each year to pay the property taxes.”

The zoning board did not decide at the meeting to give it more time to look over the evidence presented, according to Allen. The next meeting will be April 21.

The nonprofit sued the municipality after it voted in November 2022 to begin enforcing, for the first time, a zoning law on the books since 1974.

Some of the homeowners involved in the lawsuit did their due diligence to ensure if they purchased the home, they could rent it out.

Screenshots of numerous emails included in the evidence residents presented to the board show emails from homebuyers asking the township if short-term rentals are allowed.

The response from the township officials at the time was that there were no regulations preventing it.

A judge issued an injunction to prevent the township from implementing the ordinance to allow the case to work its way through the courts.

The township decided to vote, in March 2024, to explicitly disallow short-term rentals.

As a result, the judge dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction.