The US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has slapped slapped an injunction on the daycare union jamdown::
Officials of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is representing Minnesota providers who oppose unionization, said they received notice late Thursday that their motion for an injunction blocking the law was granted by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
According to lawyers for the group, that means the child-care union election cannot take place until the injunction is lifted. The appeals court said it wants to wait to see if the U.S.Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal on a related case dealing with unionization of home-care workers. That case is called Harris v. Quinn.
Its just a stop in the way – tw battle isn’t nearly over.
But its great news anyway.
Rep. Franson, one of te leaders in the fight against the jam down, released a statement
“While the legal battle over this law is far from over, I’m happy Minnesota moms and dads and their childcare providers can be breath a little easier for now as the threat of forced childcare unionization is no longer imminent.”
The good guys and gals have ha to work themselves to exhaustion against an exceptionally well-funded union push. This ha to feel good.
I’m sending some money to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today. This organization has been fighting forced unionization efforts all over the country, so to me, it’s a very worthy cause!
Pingback: LIVE AT FIVEEIGHT: 09.20.13 : The Other McCain
While there is nothing wrong with working for low wages, bringing everyone else with you is tyranny.
Emery,
How is this “bringing eveyrone else with”?
You do realize that unionization will actually reduce the money the providers receive, don’t you?
My point is they do have the right to organize and vote. If the majority of providers don’t believe it’s in their best interests to be unionized the results of the vote will reflect that sentiment.
Yeah, that’s how union deals always go down: democratic and dainty. Does the sand in your ears bother you, Emery? And your point is a stupid one: they have always had the right to organize and vote.
Off his meds again…
Emery, when this stunt was pulled in Michigan, it was actually a minority of providers who voted, as most believed it must have been just a joke. It took years of lawsuits and a new governor before the problem was rectified. In the meantime, union dues, UAW hassles (yes it was the UAW if I remember right), and more.
Adding to the trouble here is that the election here isn’t transparent–the unions can and will “suggest” to people how their votes ought to go.
“My point is they do have the right to organize and vote.”
This is actually an interesting point. There is no principled reason why Unions are allowed to do this, but corporations are not (it would be a price fixing cartel).
I believe that the legal reason that unions can do this is because of a supreme court carve-out that they got back in the 1920’s, but I can’t find the cite right now.
While I’ll celebrate the demise of AFSCME, MAPE and the rest, my joy at hearing the news that the NEA has crumbled will be unparalleled.
Dennis Van Roekel, Denise Specht and all their fetid ilk are below contempt. Our kids will be well rid of such parasites.
Carter was a bungler, but when he bungled he did it with the country’s best interests at heart. Obama & Co. are no more than anti-American infiltrators.
I’ve worked both with and without unions in various manufacturing settings for 20 years. Unions protect the jobs of bad workers (good workers need no protection). Unions try to block all moves to increase efficiency. Unions try to block all efforts to pay workers merit bonuses, and to pay higher skill workers what they’re worth (unless lower skill workers can get the same raise). It’s a recipe for failure.
There’s room for unions to do some good. They can help to enforce a good safety culture, but to do so they have to be willing to get rid of unsafe workers (they never are). They can protect workers from bad supervisors by stopping arbitrary dismissals. Again, this only works if they do not stop worthy dismissals (they never do).
If a union is successful in achieving all of their aims, there is no way that the affected company can be competitive, and no way that it can survive long term. In that sense, unions are a self-correcting problem (except in the public sector). It’s a shame that they are allowed to cause so much pain. From what I’ve seen, the only fair workplace is an open workplace, where each individual worker has the option to be in a union or not. Closed shops hurt all of us, but in the end they hurt the workers most of all by moving the best jobs somewhere else. This is a lesson that should not be denied to the daycare providers
Emery said:
“This is a lesson that should not be denied to the daycare providers”
That seems like a pretty stupid reason to do something stupid.
Most of those who are targeted into joining this union are actually the business owners, not poor, down-trodden workers. The state is not the employer.
Pingback: Federal judge blocks forced unionization of MN child-care workers « The Greenroom
Emery, read your comments, and tell me that you don’t have quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on. Suggest that you sit down and do some thinking of when a union actually makes sense, and then you can proceed from there.
One possible starting point for “needing a union” is when you have a dominant employer without whose good graces workers do not have a chance for employment. Now, do we have that with daycare in Minnesota? If not, is the Gov’ner working for justice for workers, or dues for his union supporters?
Do the math, Emery. You don’t need a Ph.D. to figure this one out.
Good news for sure. If the governor and the legislature cannot think clearly, at least the courts can. The whole idea of literally forcing small business owners to be members of a union is plainly stupid.
bubbasan:
Are you suggesting they don’t have the right to organize and vote?
What kind of right, Emery? Legal? Moral? Natural?
I really don’t see why the people who provide child care should be able to form a cartel to fix prices and exclude competition while the people who provide other essential products (like computer hardware) should not.