Union seeks to intervene in child care lawsuit

The union trying to organize government-subsidized child care providers wants to be included in the federal lawsuit aimed at stopping that effort.

AFSCME Council 5 filed a motion with the U.S. District Court to intervene in the case. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 17.

Last week, 11 child care providers filed a lawsuit against Gov. Mark Dayton and other state officials. It claims the unionization bill recently passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Dayton is unconstitutional and violates federal labor law. The providers asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to prevent a union-representation election from taking place.

In paperwork filed with the court, AFSCME lawyer Gregg Corwin wrote that the union has a statutory right to show that at least 30 percent of the providers support representation. He also called on the court to dismiss the complaint.

The lawsuit does not mention personal care assistants, who are also part of the new unionization law.

  • Jim Bendtsen

    They’ll fight hard to keep the millions they’ll skim off the top from the money paid to the INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OWNERS who are daycare providers. The unions never back down from their corrupt methods.

  • sb

    If these childcare providers object perhaps they should vote against unionization in an election. That is their choice and their right. They could even organize against it.

    This law gives individuals in these occupations the choice to form a union, that’s all. Playing games in the media and now the courts doesn’t change that simple fact.

  • T

    @sb The union would be representing ALL childcare providers in their efforts if they won, but AGAIN PEOPLE, they are NOT LETTING THEM ALL VOTE! That is the problem! The only ones they are allowing to vote are those that currently have gov’t funded children in their care. IT IS WRONG!

  • Carrie

    The bottom line….these people are NOT employees. They are small business owners. Under current labor laws, how CAN they organize?

  • DJH

    Not every provider gets to vote, that’s a problem! They want everyone to believe that these providers have a choice, but they don’t. They are only giving the “right to vote” to a select group of providers that already get CCAP. No provider will be able to accept CCAP clients unless they either join the union or pay fair share union dues, that doesn’t sound like they get to “choose” to join the union or not, sounds like they will have to deny lower income families unless they want to pay union dues. These providers are self-employed small business owners, not employees of the state. Some are on a federal food program and receive money for participating, does that then mean they are employees of the Federal Government…NO. It’s ridiculous!

  • http://dh Deb

    This would be Pandoras box. If they can force a union on a private business owner.

    I work with many people that own their businesses that do work for government in one way or another. What then?

    Will unions want to spred their payer base to include other private businesses?

    The unions tend to go where they can take money to fund their high pay scales and politics.