Mar 2, 2011

Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice ignores legal election with union busting decision

You had to know this was coming with the rash of Republican attempts at union busting, and yesterday new rightwing Department of Human Services director and former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan announced the state will stop collecting union dues from 16,500 private day care providers and will no longer fund the agency in charge of their union.

Despite the fact that a majority of workers voted in a legal election and it was upheld in the courts, Corrigan did the bidding for the rightwing think tank the Mackinac Center.

In 2009 child care workers organized the Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) union, a joint venture between United Auto Workers (UAW) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) certified CCPTM as the sole bargaining unit for all home-based child care providers receiving reimbursement payments from the Michigan Child Development and Care Program.

The Mackinac Center, and their allies in the conservative media and in the Senate GOP caucus, thinks it’s somehow illegal for a group of workers to vote to form a union, and the Mackinac Center filed a lawsuit claiming that because not everybody voted, the election is somehow invalid. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected that ridiculous claim, twice, so they turned to the Legislature where the anti-union Republicans were very receptive. Still, they failed there, so with the stroke of a pen Corrigan undid a legally sanctioned election and what she could not accomplish on the bench or in the Legislature.

I’m assuming the Mackinac Center, knowing they would never win in court, will drop their losing lawsuit, and it’s unclear if the union will file a lawsuit, hopefully they will. It’s nice to know that you can undo an election with a simple stroke of a pen, so I want to see the 2010 election in Michigan undone, too.


kevins said...

It's often hard to know what you are trying to say since your grammar and syntax are so poor.

But are you really saying that a majority of the day care workers voted in the union election? It looks like that's what you are trying to say. If so, that's not how I remember the story. I think only a small portion of people actually voted and, of those voters, a majority voted "yes." But a vast majority, as I recall, not only didn't vote but didn't realize there even was a union until they got notified that they were now part of it.

Communications guru said...


A majority of day care workers voted for a union. The voter turnout wasn't much better than the November general election, but we have to live with that one, too.

kevins said...

You still aren't clear. Is it because you are stupid or because you won't admit a mistake or because you are lying.

First you say a majority of day care workers voted for a union. Then you say the turnout wasn't very good.

So which is it? Did a majority of day care workers vote for a union? Or was it a majority of those who voted?

I'll make it simple for you. If there are 9 million people in Michigan and Rick Snyder beat the snot out of Virg Bernero in the last election, then it is accurate to say that the majority of those voting cast a ballot for Snyder, but it is incorrect to say that a majority of Michigan residents voted for Snyder.

You have it wrong, but once again you won't admit your mistake. You are either stubbornly avoiding a necessary correction, or purposedly lying.

As usual, with you it could be worse.

Still speaking "fro" yourself, I see.

Communications guru said...

Please stop playing dumb, or are you not playing? The election was legal, sanctioned and upheld by the Court of Appeals, twice. Now, what don’t you understand?

Like it says in the post, “the Mackinac Center filed a lawsuit claiming that because not everybody voted, the election is somehow invalid.” What that means, since you are unable to grasp the concept, is that just because every person did not bother to vote, does not mean the election is invalid. Of the people who bothered to vote, a majority voted to unionize.

Is that clear enough for you?

kevins said...

You still haven't corrected your mistake. Typical.

According to you (and forgive me for using you as a source), the union was getting dues from 16,500 day care providers.

How many of these voted in the election?

Clear enough for you.

Communications guru said...

First, I didn’t make a mistake to correct. Second, the source is not me, it’s the Detroit Free Press.

“How many of these voted in the election?” I don’t know, and I don’t care. It’s irreverent. The majority of those who bothered to vote, voted for the union.
Clear enough for you?

Not Anonymous said...

THere are 70,000 home based day care owners in Michigan. These are all private businesses. Approximately 40,000 of those owner have parents that qualify for state assistance in paying their child care. The state cuts a check to the day care provider that has a family that qualifies.

An election was held. By mail. In other words, these day care providers received a flyer in the mail. If they read the flyer (Do you read all of your junk mail?) and noticed that they could vote for or against a union, they returned their flyer. Of the 70,000 day care providers, roughly 6,300 sent in those flyers.

When asked about the "election" of a union, the union representative said 95% of the home based child cares voted for the union. When pushed on this number, he later admitted that it was about 50% and only of those voting, not of the 70,000.

This was a sneaky way for the unions to collect dues from private businesses. There has not been one child care center found yet that has claimed that they've received any benefit from this union. Promised additional training, but none has come. Promised better benefits including health care, but none has come. But the union collects $3.7 million per year from these 40,000 private businesses. It's not sent by the child care provider. It's deducted automatically from the subsidy check they receive from the state.

The unions, if they were being fair and honest and open, would have advertised the "election" in advance and when sending the flyers would have made it abundantly clear that it was a ballot, and when winning the election would actually have done something to earn the money they receive.

Communications guru said...

Correct, an election was held by mail, and like I said, the NLRB and the Court of Appeals have upheld it as legal. Plus, the Michigan Supreme Court decided not to hear the case because there is no reason to hear it. However, one Justice made the decision on her own.

Do I read all of my junk mail? I do when it come from the State of Michigan. As usual, nothing to back up your claims. Again, if we are going to start throwing out a legally and properly sanctioned and certified election because of voter turnout then I say throw out the 2010 general election as well.

The only thing sneaky was what a former Supreme Court Justice did because she knew the rightwing think tank would never win in court

Once again, anonymous coward, I am still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”

kevins said...

so, can you name a single benefit provided by the union?

Communications guru said...

Just off the top of my head there is training and professional development.

kevins said...

They said they did that. But did any of the coerced members of the union actually see any of that training and professional development?

Communications guru said...

There were no “ coerced members of the union,” and I can guess what the answer will be from someone who would make that false charge.

kevins said...

OK, so I asked if you knew of any actual training and you failed to answer that question. I can guess what the answer is.

Of course there were coerced members of the union, in the sense that there were many who did not want to be in the union, but still had to because of an election they weren't aware of in which only a small number participated. In fact, it seems like the majority of day care providers did NOT want to be in the union.

Communications guru said...

How the hell would I know what actual training was held; I’m not a member of the union.

No, there were no coerced members of the union any more than I’m a coerced Michigan citizen because I did not vote for Joe Hune or Rick Snyder. Again, the union election was conducted, sanctioned and certified by the NLRB, and it was upheld, twice, by the Michigan Court Appeals. Now, you can and are making all of the wild claims you want, but you can’t change those basic facts.

kevins said...

Actually, you said there was training and you are saying there is no way for you to know what actual training was held.

Another lie exposed.

You are also way off base to compare a statewide election for governor with a stealth election which was a scheme to funnel state taxpayer dollars into a union bank account.

Communications guru said...

I said it because it is true. Again, how am I supposed to know what exact kind of training was held?

Sorry, you have still never exposed or caught me in a lie because I simply do not lie.

The only person lying is you. There was no stealth election and that is just one more of your lies. The NRLP, the Michigan Court of Appeals, twice, rejected that lie, and the Michigan Supreme Court didn’t bother to take it up because they knew you were lying.

You are a typical Republican; tell a lie often enough and people start to believe it, but I’m not going to let you get away with it.

kevins said...

You are not going to let me get away with it. Oh, big talk.

You lie, I catch you, you whimper in defeat and change topics or deny what you said, even while you are saying it again.

So tell me, since you don't know what they did, how do you know they did it?

It was a stealth election. A tiny fraction of eligible voters participated. It was a scheme to put taxpayer money into union pockets. Such schemes are necessary because of the steady decline of union membership, especially in the private section. The scheme was uncovered and now it has been stopped.

Communications guru said...

That is correct; I am not going to let you get away with lies, just like I’m not going to let you get away with it now.

Sorry, I have never lied, and you certainly have never proved I have. How do I “whimper in defeat,” and how did I change the topic?

Sorry, you are a liar. It was not a “stealth election.” The rightwing Mackinac Center tried that lie, and twice it was exposed as a lie by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Again, I caught you in a lie. When are you going to stop? I would ask if you had any shame, but I already know the answer to that one.

The union dues stopped illegally because Corrigan knew your and the Mackinaw Center’s lie would not stand up in court. Hell, her own colleagues would not back her up because she knew you were lying with the "stealth election” bullshit. The union is still active, sorry, and people are still paying union dies.

Of course some will not, but they are just typical Republicans who, again, want something for nothing. Those are the ones stealing.

kevins said...

People are still paying union dies? What does that mean?

As for the size of unions, facts are facts and union membership has plummeted.

You refuse to answer two basic questions because they destroy your argument:

1. Of the eligible day care voters, how many cast a ballot?

2. What training did the union provide? (You've already acknowledged that "training" was the only benefit provided by the union, but then you said you know of no training it provided. I don't need to debunk your sorry lies when you do such a good job by yourself.)

Now, if you can be honest for once, if it wasn't a stealth election, then why did almost all of the new "union members" not know about it? This was a Granholm-aided scheme to put taxpayer money in the pockets of a UAW that is sinking financially because membership is down so low. It was a dirty deal; it's been stopped. Government can work.

Communications guru said...

It means people are still paying union dues.

You are correct, union membership has plummeted because of the constant war on them by the Republicans, which is what this BS in Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan in the disguise of a budget crisis is all about. Its’ also why the middle class is disappearing and the rich are getting richer. In fact, the growing inequality between the rich and the rest of us is turning the U.S. into a banana republic, and the richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. That’s because of the GOP war on the middle class/unions.

No, the NLRP and the Michigan Court of Appeals destroyed your argument.

1. Don’t know don’t care. See Michigan Court of Appeals.

2. Again, I’m not in the union so how could I know?

Now, if you can be honest for once and tell when you are going stop with this lie about a stealth election.

kevins said...

Since you criticized another poster for writing "youre" instead of "you're," you should try to be correct yourself...The word is "It's" not "Its'" should know that as a "former print journalist." But maybe it's not your fault; maybe your teacher skipped school to protest the day that was supposed to be taught.

Union membership has been diving regardless of which political party was in power. You like to pretend it is the result of Republicans, but the reasons for the decline are much greater than that.

Private sector union jobs have been disappearing; that's why unions have sought membership...and stealth election schemes ... to gain membership in the public sector.

You admit that facts don't concern you. That's no surprise, but at least you admit it. You've also conceded that the "union dies."

Communications guru said...

Are you seriously trying to deny that Republicans have not been trying to kill unions? That would be another lie from you, and this war on unions is all about helping Republicans keep power.

Again, when are you going to stop lying about this “stealth election?” Facts do concern me, but you have not presented any. In fact, you are presenting lies to try and make your argument.

kevins said...

I'm seriously saying that union membership has been falling steadily for decades. That's a fact.

"unions die" as you put it.

Communications guru said...

More word games, and you accuse me of twisting words?. But I’m happy to see you acknowledge that the attack on unions in Wisconsin is just another ploy to kill unions so the grand oil party can keep power.

It’s a good thing the majority of Americans are against the union busting going on in Wisconsin and Ohio.

Once again, thanks for pointing out the typo.