|
|
Location: Blogs Dan's Blog |
 |
| Posted by: Dan McGrath |
11/21/2011 |
|
Stand Up Against Unionizing Home-Based Childcare Providers
Last week, Governor Dayton issued an executive order calling for a vote to unionize childcare providers. If he succeeds in his bid to unionize childcare providers, parents will pay more for childcare services and all taxpayers will pay more to fund childcare subsidizes.
Why is this Happening?
Governor Dayton reportedly made a promise to union leaders to sign the executive order in exchange for their support in the last election. Greedy union bosses want to skim union dues from taxpayer-funded subsidies designed to help poor parents pay for childcare services. And childcare providers are just the beginning. In other states, family members caring for relatives with disabilities have also been forced to join a union so the union could skim dues off the top of Medicaid payments meant to help provide care for the diabled.
Is this Legal?
We believe Governor Dayton's actions are illegal on a number of fronts. First, in-home childcare providers are independent small business owners and are therefore not subject to collective bargaining arrangements. Second, the governor has no legal authority to issue an executive order calling for an election. Finally, the election he has authorized is rigged -- only some providers will be able to vote in the election even though all providers will be subject to the union's collective bargaining. Although this is being touted as a “voluntary” union, once the union is formed, under state law, all providers will likely be required to pay “fair share” dues even if they aren’t members of the union.
Minnesotans Should be Outraged!
Recent polls show that 68% of Minnesotans oppose the unionization of childcare providers, but Governor Dayton does not appear to be listening. With your help, we may be able to stop Governor Dayton's actions.
We must act quickly as the vote is scheduled to begin on December 7th.
Take Action:
|
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (1)
Add Comment
|
Re: Childcare Unionization Vote Imminent |
By Larry B. on
11/28/2011 |
This kinda says it all: http://www.flickr.com/photos/39948211@N02/4965522471/in/set-72157624903374630/
Tommassini, Rukavina, Rukavina's sister (union staff), Mark Dayton and Mark Ritchie
and...
"Sausage Makers" Exposed - Chapter ll
Independent Contractor Exemption Certificates
coming to your state soon if not already there...
Definition: Free Enterprise; The freedom of private businesses to operate competitively for profit with minimal government regulation and intrusion, (i.e.) Capitalism.
Note: paragraph below was excerpted from an article that appeared on workdayMinnesota.org
Building trades band together to improve conditions
By John Sielaff
28 March 2007
Editor's note: This article originally appeared in the Union Advocate newspaper as part of its centennial series in 1997.
“Danielson recalls that during the big housing booms of the '60s many new non-union home builders came into the St. Paul area. However, since it was impossible to man these jobs without union workers, there were very few problems with getting these contractors to sign the agreement with the Building Trades. When an unfamiliar worker appeared on a job he would be routinely "carded" and would be told to leave if he did not have a Building Trades card.”
Brings back memories…
I remember quite clearly what happened many years ago when a union representative approached a roofer who was doing a residential roof install in St. Paul, Minnesota (approx. 1971). As my partner and I were finishing up our own roofing job across the street we had a clear bird’s eye view of the neighborhood from atop our customers roof.
While installing the final pieces of “Boston Ridge” on our job, we heard a vehicle pull up across the street and turned to look thinking it might be the material supplier we had called earlier to deliver several missing items to the job site. With the vehicle parked, the driver got out and walked toward the house where the other roofer was working. He then walked around the side of the house and, after getting the roofers attention, loudly demanded to see the roofers union card.
As soon as he figured out what was going on, the roofer, a well worn looking guy with plenty of roofing miles and attitude on him, lifted his roofing hatchet up and towards the union rep on the ground and yelled back at him, “Here’s my G D union card, now get the hell out of here”. With his tail securely tucked between his legs, the union rep quickly retreated to his car and sped off, never to be heard from again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back then, union reps were more likely to go directly to the “workers” and try and convince them of the “benefits” of union membership through persistent “persuasion”. Not so much anymore. Now days, it’s more likely that you’ll find an overzealous busy body union lobbyist with socialist tendencies chasing legislators around the State capital trying to convince them (some need no convincing) to use the power of Government to coerce independent “right-to-workers” (such as Independent craft people – carpenters, for instance) into conforming to their union “ideal”.
In 2008, contractors in Minnesota learned all about a new State law that would force them, under penalty of law, to require that anyone working for them be certified [by the State] as an “independent contractor”. The fact that a contractor had seen to it that anyone working for them under normal circumstances (sub-contractor status) signed a proper Section 530 compliant sub-contractor agreement meant nothing.
The new ICEC law went into effect on July 1, 2008 (3 days before “Independence Day”) with the “promise” that enforcement would begin in earnest on January 1, 2009. Word is that test cases against “violators” had already been held prior to January 1, 2009. Rumor has it that State employee’s are now out scouring neighborhoods looking for more “violators” to penalize.
The law, as written, essentially stated that if a contractor was caught allowing anyone who did not hold a State issued “Independent Contractor Exemption Certificate” (ICEC) to work for them, the contractor would be fined (i.e.; “taxed” [fee]) up to $5,000. per occurrence. The reasoning given for supporting and eventually passing the law was/is that too many (non-union) contractors were getting away with underpaying taxes, not paying benefits (work comp, etc) and allegedly underpaying workers which allegedly gave them a competitive advantage (over companies that were “unionized”).
Was there any truth to support their reasoning? A miniscule slice, maybe but no worse than in other industries. However, the real question is as follows; was the concern of the legislators behind the bill/law that workers were being fairly paid and protected (workers comp insurance, etc.) or were they (and the union lobbyists speaking for the unions as well as the union leaders who are also State legislators) more concerned that they and the state (once convinced) were being deprived of revenue and the unions deprived of control? In my opinion, it is indeed the latter.
There are many questions and concerns yet to be considered that will be addressed in this publication and elsewhere. Of primary concern however, is the legality of the law and secondarily, was the original House bill HF1283 as authored by Representative Michael V. Nelson (DFL - Fin. Sec./Field Agent, Carpenters Union No. 851) and Senate Bill SF1103 as co-authored by since disgraced Senator Satveer S. Chaudhary (DFL – attorney/business consultant with strong labor ties and endorsements) and Senator Tom Bakk (DFL - labor representative for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and then potential MN Gov candidate) introduced and passed with the intention of really helping workers or was it a blatant attempt to disregard and dispose of existing law while making right-to-workers and contractors who have no interest in joining or supporting unions pay for their “misguided” free enterprise thinking? Take a look at the following and see how it all ties together.
As reported on mpls.startribune.com; 5/17/2008 regarding disgraced Senator Chaudhary (D)
Senator's TV show puts him on the defensive
The DFL'er got a deal on an Artic Cat snowmobile he used on the show, and a union is a program sponsor. He says his votes aren't affected.
By DAVID SHAFFER, Star Tribune - last update May 17, 2008 - 10:04 PM excerpt below
"The North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters spent $15,000 to be a sponsor of the series, Chaudhary said. In 2007, Chaudhary sponsored a bill to curb independent contractors in the construction industry. The bill, which passed, was backed by the carpenters council, which also has a political action committee.
'It smells awful,' said David Schultz, an attorney and a professor in the Hamline University Graduate School of Management who has studied and written about money in politics."
The Real Story Behind Minnesota ICEC
From Single Subject to logrolling to "woodchucks" to outright fraud?
On November 20, 2002, Brandon Miller, project manager for the Hays Companies, gave a presentation to the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation on his study of the California Workers Compensation insurance market. Mr. Miller stated that the Hays Companies had identified and would be looking at three broad areas: financial oversight and regulation, benefit delivery and access to and affordability of mandated workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Mr. Miller further emphasized that the Hays Companies will prepare a comprehensive report by mid-year 2003 with practical objective recommendations. In response to a question from Mark Webb, AIG Group, Mr. Miller stated that the study would look at the issue of privatizing the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF).
In June of 2003 the Montana Department of Labor and Industries Workers Compensation Regulation Bureau initiated a study to evaluate and compare their Independent Contractor (IC) Exemption processes with those used by other states. At that point in time, Minnesota was not one of the other states. On October 10, 2003, the same Brandon Miller of the Hays Companies made a presentation to the Montana Department of Labor and Industry entitled Independent Contractor Best Practices Report.
Who is Hays? They are a privately held insurance firm based in Minneapolis, Minnesota (risk management, commercial insurance and employee benefits consulting and services). More on Hays later.
Garbage in, garbage out...from the beginning
1/11/2007 SF0062 - Chief Author Sen. Tomassoni (D)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0062&ssn=0&y=2007
Description: American flags and related items sale regulation (single subject)
Article on Tomassini/Bly's "Minnesota Peoples Bailout Act"
http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/minnesota-peoples-bailout-act-introduced-in-legislature/
Photo of Sen. Tomassini, SOS Mark Ritchie, Rep. Tom Rukavina, Mark Dayton and Ida Rukavina
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39948211@N02/4965522471/in/set-72157624903374630/
SF0062 House Companion Bill
1/16/2007 HF0122 - Chief Author Rep. Rukavina (D)
Description: As introduced, American flag sales (single subject)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0122.0.html&session=ls85
5/21/2007 HF0122, 2nd engrossment
Description: Omnibus (see line 66.14)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0122.2.html&session=ls85
5/25/2007 Filed - Secretary of State, Chapter 135
4/12/2008 posted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/21/2007 SF1103 - Chief Author Sen. Chaudhary (D), co-author Sen. Tom Bakk (D), MN Senate Tax Chair - also a carpenters union labor rep
Description: Independent contractor exemption certificate requirements and regulations
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF1103&ssn=0&y=2007
Line 1.20 "This section applies only to individuals who are doing commercial or residential building construction or improvements in the public or private sector." (Key – non-union)
3/19/2007 - re-referred to finance see SF2089
3/22/2007 - SF2089 - Chief Author Sen. Tomassini (D)
Description: Omnibus jobs and economic development appropriations
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S2089.3.html&session=ls85
SF1103 House Companion Bill
2/22/2007 HF1283 - Chief Author Rep. Michael Nelson (D) - also a carpenters union labor rep
Description: Independent contractor exemption certificates required, penalties provided, notice to the commissioners of revenue and employment and economic development authorized, and review of certifications of independent contractor status required.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF1283&ssn=0&y=2007
Line 2.3 "Subd. 2. Limited application. This section applies only to individuals performing public or private sector commercial or residential building construction or improvement services." (Key – non-union)
5/18/2007 - 5th engrossment, bill passed as amended then sent to Senate
Note: It should be obvious to anyone reading the above that the Senate version as co-authored by friend of labor Senator Chaudhary (D) and carpenters union labor rep Senator Bakk (D) and the House version as authored by carpenters union labor rep Representative Nelson (D) were focused on “punishing” non union independent construction contractors who have no interest in joining their or any other union.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/6/2007 - SF2089 Chief Author Sen. Tomassini (D)
Description: Omnibus jobs and economic development appropriations
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF2089&ssn=0&y=2007
no House companion bill
5/07/2007 SF2089 vetoed by Governor Tim Pawlenty (R)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/14/2008 SF2688 Chief Author Sen. Tomassini (D) and Sen. Bakk (D)
Description: Trucking industry employers unemployment compensation audits; independent contractor status general rule exception elimination
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF2688&ssn=0&y=2008
SF2688 House Companion Bill
2/21/2008 HF3296 Chief Author Rep. Sheldon Johnson (D)
Description: Independent contractor status rule exception eliminated, and audit activities and report required.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF3296&ssn=0&y=2008
Citing a recent report from the Minnesota State auditor, Pawlenty stated the following in his veto message: “Current law appears adequate to address the needs of this industry. Moreover, a recent analysis by the legislative auditor found that the percentage of misclassified individuals in this industry is no greater than other industries.” In fact, trucking (transportation) scored the lowest at 3 percent with real estate at the top at 33 percent and construction in the middle at about 15.5 percent.
Probably already knowing that truckers/transportation was the lowest number on the list and would raise the least amount of suspicion, the above authors of SF2688/HF3296 thought the bill would be a good test case - to test the Internal Revenue Code 530 waters. If carpenters union rep Sen. Bakk, carpenters union rep Rep. Michael Nelson, and disgraced Sen. Savteer Chaudhary, and the other friends of labor were really concerned about misclassification of workers, they would have gone after the real estate industry first instead of non-union construction contractors, many who are and who also hire other non-union carpenters.
0
04/07/2008 HF4168 Chief Author Rep. Ann Lenczewski (D), MN House Tax Chair
Description: Wages subject to withholding definition modified.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H4168.0.html&session=ls85
pay particular attention to line 1.8 and 1.9
04/07/2008 HF4168 referred to taxes (where she is chair)
no senate companion bill
Regarding Lenczewski’s bill HF4168, excerpts from the Minnesota House of Representatives “Sessions Weekly” are shown below including "testimony" by carpenters union lobbyist Kyle Makarios (last paragraph).
Independent Contractors Published (4/18/2008)
By Courtney Blanchard
For a while the House Taxes Committee appeared baffled by a proposal to make a technical change to the state’s tax code. HF4168, sponsored by Chairwoman Rep. Ann Lenczewski (DFL-Bloomington), would change a provision that allows a worker to be qualified as an “independent contractor.” The committee laid over the bill on April 16 for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill. There is no Senate companion.
Under current law, the tax code provides a safe haven for the employers to avoid tax withholding, Lenczewski said. The proposal would classify some workers as employees instead of independent contractors, subjecting them to withhold Minnesota’s taxes.
“I’ve never heard of Section 530, and I don’t want to hear about it again!” said Rep. Loren Solberg (DFL-Grand Rapids).
But the reasons, possible repercussions and the current law itself (Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978), prompted frustration in the committee.
• carpenters would no longer be misclassified on state tax returns filed by construction firms. The proposal would change state law, and wouldn’t grant access to federal benefits. However, the 26 percent of carpenters who should be classified as “employees” could lobby for access to federal benefits like workers’ compensation and employee insurance, said Kyle Makarios, political director at the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters.”
What is section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 (Internal Revenue Code)
Under section 530, a reasonable basis for treating a worker as an independent contractor is considered to exist if the taxpayer reasonably relied on (1) past IRS audit practice with respect to the taxpayer, (2) published rulings or judicial precedent, (3) long-standing recognized practice in the industry of which the taxpayer is a member, or (4) if the taxpayer has any “other reasonable basis” for treating a worker as an independent contractor. The legislative history states that section 530 is to be “construed liberally in favor of taxpayers.”
Why did the House Taxes Committee appear baffled by Tax Chairwoman Ann Lenczewski's (D) proposal? Probably because it must have appeared obvious to them what she was up to and they wanted no part of it. The last paragraph leaves Ms. Lenczewski and her allegiances to carpenters union rep and DFL Representative Michael Nelson and particularly to then potential 2010 gubernatorial candidate and carpenters union rep DFL Senator Tom Bakk, MN Senate Tax Chair exposed. With her eyes on her dream job as the next Revenue Commissioner, she wanted to make sure that Senator Bakk was pleased - just in case.
Had she been successful in getting HF4168 passed into law (turning independent construction contractors into employees and, for that matter, turning all independent contractors from realtors to off duty cops to truck drivers to city attorneys to accountants/CPA's to attorneys in general, and on and on into employees) there would have been no reason to hold the admin rule hearings that eventually helped to smooth the way for ICEC.
Who is Kyle Makarios, political director at the North Central Regional Council of Carpenters who "testified" at Lenczewski's HF4168 hearings where she was both the bill author and tax chairwoman?
Kyle Makarios - Political Director, North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters
November 29, 1999 – Makarios
Excerpted from:
“FACES of RESISTANCE - GALLERY 2 - CONFRONTING CORPORATE GLOBALIZATION"
7. Among those who traveled to Seattle for the WTO protests were Kyle Makarios, his partner Erin, and their daughter Emma. Upon his return, Kyle wrote an article for the Midwest Institute for Social Transformation's newsletter, MIST Rising, in which he noted that "while the T.V. coverage of the protests played it up as a battle, showcasing the 'violence' of protesters and clouds of teargas, they neglected to report on what was really going on and its true significance . . . What happened before the police offensive was one of the most powerful events I've ever taken part in. For the six or so hours that protesters held downtown Seattle there was a huge festival of resistance to corporate plunder. All over the 'liberated territory' there were marches, parades, street theater, musicians, dancing, rallies, and huge artistic puppets . . . We were successful in blockading every entrance to the WTO's conference center and stopping the meeting of this organization dedicated to corporate profit--that is, until the police were given the order to clear the streets. Then followed two days and nights of vicious attacks on non-violent protesters by police using rubber bullets, teargas, pepper spray, and plenty of boots and clubs."
Makarios seems to have a problem with businesses earning profits as well as the hard working “vicious” law enforcement officers who were simply doing their jobs - most, if not all who belong to a union, by the way.
Obviously, there are a number of large multi-national corporations that abuse the "system" and do as much harm as good and Makarios may indeed be correct in believing that there are problems that need to be addressed. However, as you will soon see, the many thousands of independent contractors (small business owners) affected by ICEC and similar legislation in Minnesota and pretty much every other state in the country at this point in time, have nothing to do with the issues ("corporate plunder") he discussed in the above article. Nor can they be blamed for the problems.
After reading through the Makarios excerpts above and below, it becomes clear that his agenda is more about supporting the growth of union control than anything else. Apparently, in his mind, hard working small business owners (job creators) who often struggle to remain viable are the enemy when in reality, they are anything but.
July 3, 2000 – Makarios
Excerpted from:
“A socialist newsweekly published in the interests of working people”
Vol. 64/No. 26 July 3, 2000
St. Paul meat packers to vote on union in July
Union supporters produce newsletter, fight victimizations
"You have the complete support of our union," they were told by Uriel Pérez, an organizer for Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 17, the union that is striking hotels in the Twin Cities. Another HERE organizer, Kyle Makarios, also voiced support.”
December 6, 2001 - Makarios
Excerpted from:
‘Lake Superior Socialist Action is the local branch of Socialist Action. Socialist Action is a group of revolutionary socialists committed to the emancipation of working and oppressed people everywhere. We are active in the labor, anti-war, human rights, student, women’s, Black and Chicano liberation, queer and all other social movements that challenge the injustices of capitalism and organize people to stand up and fight in their own interests.”
Report on Dec. 6, 2001 - Hotel Workers Rally
“After marching and chanting in front of the hotels, a brief rally was held in front of the Inn on Lake Superior. Ida Rukavina, an organizer for Local 99 spoke updating everyone on the struggle. I spoke about working conditions in the non-union hotel and why housekeeping and laundry workers need other workers' support. Kyle Makarios of HERE Local 17 in the Twin Cities spoke, as did Dave Foster, president of the local Steelworkers union. Wrapping up the rally was Carol Carlson, the president of Local 99, thanking everyone for turning out.”
Full article by: Adam Ritscher, Lake Superior Socialist Action”
Note: It has been my experience in talking with friends who are union members, most if not all who are proud and patriotic Americans who benefit greatly from our free enterprise system, that it is highly unlikely that any of them are of the same mindset as those who belong to any of the above organizations.
March 13, 2007 - Makarios on HF1283
Excerpted from:
workdayMinnesota.org
“The practice" is plainly illegal and widely acknowledged as a problem in the construction industry," Kyle Makarios, political director for the Lakes & Plains Regional Council of Carpenters, testified at the House hearing. However, no mechanism exists to enforce the law against misclassifying workers.”
from the same article...
"A Harvard University study in Massachusetts and Maine found that as many as 24 percent of construction workers are illegally misclassified." (and how does a study conducted in Massachusetts and Maine relate to conditions in Minnesota?)
"Particularly in the residential marketplace, the misclassified worker is our single greatest barrier to wage increases," said Scott Malcolm, executive secretary-treasurer at the Regional Council. "It's making it incredibly difficult to compete." ("greatest barrier to wage increases" and "making it difficult to compete" being the key statements).
0July 1, 2008 – ICEC becomes law (enforcement to begin January 1, 2009)0
August 21, 2008 – Makarios
“Carpenters Union Endorses Senator Norm Coleman”
By Michael B. Brodkorb
“ST. PAUL – Today the Carpenters Union, Minnesota’s largest construction union, announced its endorsement of U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s re-election bid. With over 13,000 members in Minnesota, the union represents carpenters, millwrights, pile drivers, floor coverers, lathers and cabinet makers."
And why would the carpenters union ever consider endorsing U.S. Senator Norm Coleman, a republican?
October 6, 2008 – Coleman/Hays Companies
Harpers magazine at Harpers.org
“The firm’s executives, their spouses and employees provided Coleman with $20,700 in campaign contributions between 2002 and 2006."
“McKim told the Star Tribune that Kazeminy approached him in 2007 with a "directive" to send $100,000 to Senator Coleman through Hays.”
December 08, 2008 – Re: Hays
Startribune.com
"Hays Companies has twice run afoul of officials in other states. The company was fined $500 by the Nevada Department of Insurance in 1998 for selling insurance there without a license. Last year, the Massachusetts attorney general accused Hays Companies of excessive perks and deceptive business practices. Hays Companies settled that case by repaying $726,952 to two former clients and paying $200,000 in a state penalty. In court papers, Hays Companies said it was a victim of its own employees.”
0January 1, 2009 – ICEC becomes enforceable in Minnesota0
January 7, 2009 – Freedom @ Work, re: Big labors push
Alarming Trend: Politicians Force Employees Into Union Ranks, Workers Have No Say
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 17:18 — Patrick Semmens
“Yesterday's Politico featured an article on Big Labor's agenda for 2009 (which the SEIU union just announced that alone it plans to spend $85 million to push for). As we already know, priority one is imposing the card check organizing mandate that leads to intimidation and harassment of workers who may not wish to affiliate with a union.
“For American labor, 2009 will be a big year,” McEntee said. “We have a new administration. We have governors all across the country who are looking toward being able to organize more workers in red states that have become blue.”
Notice that McEntee, who is the top official at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, says that it will be politicians who unionize workers.
This is the dirty little secret: It's increasingly uncommon for employees to seek unionization on their own. Instead, most "organizing" takes place because union officials target workers for unionization from the outside top down-style, often with Big Labor supported politicians playing a central role.
Two of the many examples of this are the Maine State workers being represented by Foundation attorneys in the Locke U.S. Supreme Court case and the home and health care workers in Illinois who were forced into union ranks by disgraced Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich. In both those cases, the union was designated by Big Labor-friendly governors -- rather than selected by the workers.
Concerning MN ICEC, it isn’t just union supported politicians playing a central role; it is, indeed and in fact, actual union officials who are also elected State legislators that pushed the law through.
|
|
|
|
|
|