SEIU and the Law of Intended Consequences

SEIU has made a good living off the law of unintended consequences. Or so the labor union would have you think. The reality is, there’s nothing unintended about the consequences they reap. And when it comes to local, state and federal lawmaking, SEIU banks on the propensity of the American people to respond to emotion rather than logic, and orchestrated concern that becomes a popular mantra. Even some SEIU members (those brave enough to say so) plead for the public to investigate the union’s true intentions. But if you’re just an average citizen disengaged from the issues, before you know it, you’re ignoring the consequences staring you right between the eyes.

This past September Lisa Snyder, a 35 year old Michigan mother, made the news when she received a disturbing letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services. In it, the letter warned her that she was in violation of the law. Her offense? Watching a handful of neighborhood kids each morning for about 20 minutes as they waited at the end of her driveway for the school bus to arrive, with the blessing of their parents. State law in Michigan prohibits the home supervision of unrelated children for more than four weeks in a year without a child care provider license. Turns out a neighbor had complained and the Michigan Department of Human Services, the watchdog for home child care licensing, intervened by sending the warning letter. In Michigan, state employees for the DHS are represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW) labor union. Coincidentally, the union that represents the state’s home child care workers? Also the UAW.

AFSCME: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

FCC: Family child care | FNN: Family, friend and neighbor

” Building a Union of Family Child Care and FFN Providers”

by SEIU & AFSCME members to the National Women’s Law Center

So, are these the unintended consequences of, as Michigan Rep. Brian Calley described it, “agency officials interpreting a 36-year-old statute regulating day care centers more broadly than necessary”? Or intended consequences that UAW is the union that represents both the home child care workers AND the government agency that serves as its enforcer and watchdog in the first place? Let me point out that in 15 out of the 16 states in its home child care organizing strategy, SEIU designates the organizing lead either to itself or to its collaborating partner union, AFSCME – Michigan is the only state in which they deviate and incorporate UAW.

Also in Michigan, a story of three women who run their own independent businesses out of their homes, caring for neighborhood children. They each recently received a letter indicating that they are now dues-paying members of the Child Care Providers Together Michigan union – a complete surprise to them.

[vimeo 6594709]

After a 2006 Executive Order by the Michigan Governor awarded the union (a partnership of UAW and AFSCME) bargaining rights for home child care workers, all it took for the union to convert all 40,000 child care workers to dues paying members was 5,900 signed union authorization cards. That left some independent home child care workers, who’d for years considered themselves self-employed, feeling dismayed and stunned. Such began cries of forced unionism and initiated a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Human Services. The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Patrick Wright from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, explains that the whole arrangement –

is nothing more than “a government ‘shell corporation‘ designed to get around possible political and constitutional obstructions to the arrangement”. Wright offers a detailed backgrounder on this case and a fantastic explanation of the scheme behind the actions.

So, was this an instance of unintended consequences that were simply unforeseen by the state of Michigan and its representatives working with the unions? Or was unionizing 40,000 child care workers under the quiet cover of an apparently under-advertised vote by mail campaign an intended consequence for AFSCME and UAW? More importantly, why is SEIU’s part in this production so downplayed? Their joint documents clearly indicate that SEIU is driving the national movement to unionize home child care workers all across the country. Not to mention SEIU’s “Kids First” program, which is both the beneficiary and the business driver behind all of these new home child care union members, in concert with AFSCME’s efforts.

Some of these examples seem to be reminiscent of other SEIU unionization efforts.

Most recently, there is the case of the National Union for Healthcare Workers (NUHW), an independent union that was formed by the democratically elected Executive Board members and stewards of SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West (SEIU-UHW), the result of Andy Stern’s two year hostile takeover of the union before it became SEIU-UHW. Fellow BigGovernment contributor, Publius, wrote about their recent struggles with SEIU in the post, “Union and Whistleblower Complaint Documents SEIU Ballot Fraud”. On the heels of that post comes another titled “Whistleblower Video Reveals SEIU Ballot Fraud“, which exposes scandalous video of SEIU’s typical unionizing tactics from a June 2009 union election against the NUHW, which I’ll reference here for convenience (but be sure to read the full post above!):

[youtube EuX2tysBFQk]

There are of course countless articles that recount the landmark 2005 action by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich when he issued an executive order that gave home-based child care providers the freedom to form a union for the first time ever in the state’s history. One of many unintended consequences of that decision was the empowerment of SEIU to visit workers at their workplace – their homes. This opened up the door for similar problems in a number of states.

And stories of unintended consequences abound in California, not just in reference to the struggles of what has since become UHW, but also on the struggles that existed between SEIU and other labor unions, such as the California Nurses Association (a struggle that still remains) and for a time in multiple states, even labor union partner AFSCME.

A great, detailed timeline of SEIU’s history of attacking other labor unions, including its own, is maintained by UNITE HERE’s specialty website that issues an open call for SEIU to change its course.

But why is SEIU so eager to carry out its strategy to turn all of these home child care workers into state employees and unionize them? AFSCME answers it well in their own talking points:

“By employing millions of independent providers across the country, states are undercutting public employee wages and conditions, and threatening our jobs. AFSCME must organize independent providers to fight for decent wages and benefits, and to prevent the erosion of our own living standards.“

There’s also the benefit of billions and billions of dollars in state and federal aid that goes not only to the care providers (for nutritious food and expenses), but to the unions for education and research and various other things. And when you have independent home child care providers who, given the choice to unionize and receive government food subsidies, would prefer to give up food subsidies if it meant remaining independent and self-employed, why would you deny them that? Why place that burden on the state and federal taxpayers when it does not need to be there?

Well, that simply solidifies the next benefit, which is the benefit of thousands of additional dues-paying union members at a time. And with more members of course comes more power and leverage. In fact, it’s worth pointing out what others have also noticed tucked away inside the Senate health care bill. SEIU’s leverage would seem rather evident in a few key sections:

The Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel, one of a multitude of new bureaucratic agencies created in the bill, will help dictate how many workers staff our health care facilities and home workers, along with their benefits and wages, etc.

SEIU will also benefit from a likely appointment on the National Health Care Workforce Commission (Page 1279), a commission of 15 members to be appointed by the Comptroller General to include individuals with national recognition for their expertise in health care labor market analysis, including health care workforce analysis, in addition to health care workforce education and training, among other expertise.

It’s not so much the workers’ rights that anyone really takes issue with – unions of course have every right to make recommendations for the best wages and benefits on behalf of their members. And it’s not so much the notion that labor unions would have input to the analysis and education of health care workers that some might take issue with.

The real issues at hand are those of unintended consequences:

• As states negotiate their health care, home care and child care contracts and turn more of them over to labor unions like SEIU, the universe of unionized health care workers expands. Add to that the government-run option, and that universe expands exponentially – to an unbalanced level. It’s hard to imagine there would be any private health care workers left in a few years. (Especially when the union repeatedly assaults any defense of the free market system and capitalism).
• With the recent behavior of SEIU and its incessant attacks on companies and individuals they perceive to be “too wealthy”, will a union with so much power granted to it by the government take it upon itself to determine to whom and how care is delivered? Rather than boycott advertisers, will they refuse care if they don’t like what you say or how much you make?
• Will SEIU’s notoriously aggressive tactics in negotiating contracts seep into our personal health affairs? Think about it – this is a union that has allegedly harassed its own affiliates, stalked home care workers and nurses at their homes for not electing SEIU to represent them, forced home child care workers into unionism, and broken into people’s mailboxes to steal their voting ballots. What will its leaders do when health care workers’ contracts don’t go the way they’d like? Will they go on strike and leave patients stranded?
• How many other “babysitter” laws will be added into legislation or their interpretation stretched to fit the needs of growing SEIU’s membership?
• What else will SEIU try to somehow attach to health care, in an effort to embed itself into every facet of our personal care? Aside from actual health care workers, SEIU currently ties the following workers, all SEIU members, to health care: Cafeteria Workers, Laundry Service Workers, Janitors, Building Service Workers, and others.
• If state governments like Michigan can unionize workers who happen to receive public subsidies as part of their private business operations, how will this apply in the arena of health care with a government-run plan? Will SEIU seize this as an opportunity to step in and unionize any facility or provider receiving subsidies? And what about individuals? The government and SEIU enforce this logic for business bailouts. Government also uses the same logic to enforce mandatory participation in the Green for All weatherization programs in states like NJ. What’s to say the same logic won’t be applied to individuals in the public option?
• With a monopoly on the health care workers in the country, what kind of “Justice for All” plan of accountability will the SEIU launch after their “close the wealth gap” issue isn’t achieved? Will they embark upon a “close the health wealth gap” instead?
• Once SEIU has expanded to all of health care, what’s left? Will they come after your union next? Or try to unionize you? Perhaps they’ll unionize private consultants, accountants, home caterers, writers, Joe the Plumber, homemakers and moms.

Will we conveniently chalk it all up to the law of unintended consequences? Or will anyone in Congress or average American citizen voters have enough sense to start looking for intent in such consequences?