Jump to content

Judge shuts down Dayton’s forced unionization of independent day-care workers


Draggingtree

Recommended Posts

Draggingtree

judge-shuts-down-daytons-forced-unionization-of-independent-day-care-workersHot Air:

Judge shuts down Dayton’s forced unionization of independent day-care workers

posted at 11:31 am on April 7, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

 

When last we left Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton and his attempt to shanghai independent day-care workers into a public-employee union by executive order, a judge had temporarily halted the effort pending further review, albeit with plenty of expressions of deep skepticism over Dayton’s authority to proceed. Yesterday, Judge Dale Lindman made it official, ruling that Dayton exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the prerogative of the legislature, nullifying the upcoming unionization electio

Judge Dale Lindman declared Dayton’s order, issued Nov. 15, ”null and void because it is an unconstitutional usurpation of the Legislature’s constitutional right to create and or amend laws and as such is a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine.”

The decision was a victory for anti-union child-care providers and conservative groups who opposed an attempt to unionize in-home child-care providers. It was a defeat for Dayton, who argued that the providers had a right to decide through an election whether they wanted to be represented by a union.

Lindman’s order ruled that the elections ordered by Dayton cannot occur.

“The proper method to proceed is for the matter to be brought to the Legislature,” Lindman’s order reads. He argued that Dayton’s order is an attempt “to circumvent the Legislative process and unionize child care providers by executive order, rather than by adhering to a valid Legislative process.” Scissors-32x32.png

read more http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/07/judge-shuts-down-daytons-forced-unionization-of-independent-day-care-workers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Draggingtree

 

True North: Boom! Goes the Dynamite on Dayton and His Union Thugs' Plans

Luke Matthews

4/6/12

 

In the end, it took just a few sentences and a simple term definition to take down failing Governor Mark Dayton’s executive order. But boy did those words pack a punch. The same governor that shut down the state government for no reason, lost our AAA credit rating, and lost the fight to stop voter ID, has been foiled again. This time his executive order for union elections for childcare workers proved him to be the ‘governor who couldn’t.’ Ole Crazy Eyes isn’t turning into the great leader the DFL hoped he would. In fact, the judge in the case found Dayton’s executive order to be something wholly outside the bounds of the law and went all WWF on him.

 

(Snip)

 

 

Governor Dayton signed an executive order last year to have his Bureau of Mediation Services chief conduct a unionization election involving about 40% of childcare workers in the state. These were for the most part, small, privately owned care centers. SEIU and AFSCME had collected union cards over the past few years in order to get a union vote. There were numerous questions about the way these union activists had procured the signed cards. Examples of union officials tricking people into signing were among the charges.

 

(Snip)

 

It was breath-taking in its scope.

 

Some childcare providers sued to stop it. The judge ordered the union election stopped until he ruled on the case. Today, his decision was handed down. Kaboom!

 

Judge Lindman didn’t putter around the edges or employ a system of tests. Lindman went right to the heart of the issue: the authority to conduct an election under Minnesota state law. He boldly stated, “The Minnesota Supreme court has interpreted a labor dispute as involving employer and employee relations.” Without such a relationship, the parties wouldn’t be engaged in a “labor dispute” but in some other kind of dispute. So, where did Dayton get his odd phrase of “regardless of whether there is an employer or employee relationship?” It was found in the BMS statute.

 

(Snip)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1709469315
×
×
  • Create New...