Introduction: As I write this, the Minnesota House is set to vote on a proposal to unionize independent, self-employed business owners who heretofore worked primarily for families of small children (home health care aides are also included). Some of these business owners have customers who receive public subsidies. AFSCME, the powerful union of state and local workers, has been seeking to unionize, and enrich its coffers with the dues of, these business owners for several years now. Thanks in part to the union’s backing of today’s majority party, the Legislature will say “thank you” to AFSCME. And the union, in turn, will of course say “thank you” to the DFL with future contributions of time and treasure.

While it’s true that a new law will not automatically sweep the self-employed into a union (there will have to be an election of business owners registered to receive subsidized clients), its enactment can best be described as a gift among political friends. There is no good that a childcare union (backed with the power of the state) could do that could not be done on a purely voluntary basis.

Should government pass a law whose chief achievement is to plump up the financial and political fortunes of the party in power, and its allies? Granted, that’s as old as politics itself, but it’s still ugly. And there’s plenty of ugly going on at the Minnesota Capitol today, with the House expected to endorse a membership- and financial-grab by two powerful unions.

I went to the Capitol for about two hours, talking with childcare providers, a TV reporter talking as “daycare dad,” and my own legislator. (That person is almost certainly a “yes” vote, but I did what I could.) I hung out with the independent business owners, usually sole proprietors, who don’t want to be in a union. One of the women there told me she was a DFL voter, but opposed the legislation, and I saw someone else carry a sign that read “DFLer against forced unionization,” or something like that.

Various Republican members from the House worked the rope, talking with various “vote no” advocates. A Republican legislator, I forget who, asked my (DFL) legislator to come talk with me. We did, though it’s difficult to carry on a conversation when your ears are hurting from loud chanting on both sides.

The throngs of purple- and green-shirted union activists and employees performed, in the words of one friend, the “‘hey hey, ho ho’ bullshit.” At one point, someone brought out a drum, though thankfully that didn’t last long. Of course, there was also the chant, “this is what democracy looks like.”  Democracy? I’m hoping for a republic of limited government. I wanted to yell out “Republic, not democracy!” But I refrained.

The people who wish to remain independent are outnumbered by the union shirts, and they are most likely going to lose out by the time the session if over. But sometimes you need to channel your inner Bill Buckley and yell “Stop!” This is one of those days. I expect this to go well into the night.

For more, see the Twitter feed of John Rouleau. Don’t forget Jonathan Blake, who has a great photo of “the Koch brothers” who are opposed to this power grab. Of course, you can also see the Protest Vigil page on Facebook, as well as Childcare Freedom.

* * *

Finally, here’s what I wrote to my legislator after I got home:

Thank you for talking with me this morning outside the House chamber. To review, here are some key points:

1.  Unionization would eventually affect all day care providers, not only those receiving cca payments. (Daycare providers are daycare providers, regardless of whether they receive state payments or not.) [I was wrong on the math, but not the overall point: A pro-union vote, most likely by a minority of providers who receive subsidies, would sweep all providers who receive a subsidy into a union. The ensuing regulations implemented by union/DHS negotiations could work their way through to affect all providers, not only those who receive subsidies. In addition, providers would be forced to choose between being independent business owners and caring for children from low-income families.]

2. We are talking about independent business owners, most of whom are self-employed sole proprietors. The thought that they would be considered executive- branch state employees (line 2.8) or an employee organization (line 1.19) simply because they took ONE ccap child in their care boggles the mind. (Furthermore, I understand this would apply even to someone who had registered to receive ccap subsidies but was not currently doing so.)

3. Even state government, with its power to tax, does not have unlimited funds. Funds taken from providers are funds not spent on childcare, but on union organizing and on politics.

4. If childcare providers want a lobbying group, they already have one. There is no need to change state law to establish, by privilege, a special place for some groups (1.18-1.20; 3.13-3.25).

5. The establishment of a union or fee-paying requirement will discourage some providers from offering their services to low-income families.

6. The establishment of a union puts another layer of a third-party between parents and care-providers.

7. The Star-Tribune editorial board argues that the measure is largely a payback from the DFL caucus to its union friends:”Let’s be clear: This is a financial lifeline to a big, public-sector, Democrat-friendly union at a time when union membership is at a historic low nationally.” That’s politics, but certainly not good governance. I would ask, “what would you think were the roles reversed?” Imagine, for example, a legal situation in which any firm that wished to bid on a maintenance or construction project with the state must first join a “construction quality council” established by the Freedom Club. Even if the members of the council were world-class experts in various fields of engineering, it would not be a good idea. People would see it, rightly, as a naked power play to appease one political party. In the case of the childcare proposal, the legislative language does not require that childcare providers join a union, but we all know that is the hoped-for intent–and why dozens if not hundreds of union activists, some of them paid by union dues, are chanting outside the chamber today.

In short, there are no problems with child care for which this legislation is an appropriate solution. Meanwhile, the legislation has some severe problems of its own. I know that public unions are big fans of yours, but I ask you to consider the public good rather than that of one specific set of interests. For that reason, I wish you to vote “no.”

 

* *

First published by the Center of the American Experiment