foolmenot.comThe Ann Arbor News gets it… Governor Granholm is buying votes from unions at the expense of not only taxpayers, but at the expense of parents, sons, and daughters of folks who must live in adult foster care and home-for-the-aged facilities.
The News also understands the trickle-down impact to small business...
"We're also concerned about the financial impact this could have on the state business climate as a whole. Small adult foster-care homes would be particularly at risk, and might not be able to bear extra burdens of state regulation"
Unionizing these facilities should not be by government mandate. But what does the Governor care?
Full article follows…
The Ann Arbor News
Adult-foster care proposal looks like union leverage
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Michigan's Department of Human Services is proposing new administrative rules for an industry that cares for 50,000-plus state residents. But are the proposed rules intended to help patients - or unionize 5,000 adult foster care and home-for-the-aged facilities?
Opposition to the rules' change has been mounting since last summer, when the rules were first proposed. Earlier this month, the political fat hit the fire when Senate Republicans introduced legislation to stop the Granholm administration from imposing the rules. That set up a clear test of legislative and executive authority. Ordinarily, the executive branch comes up with the rules to implement laws enacted by the Legislature; in this case, some lawmakers have concluded it's time to temper the governor's executive authority.
Under the legislation, lawmakers would bar practices that grant preferences to health occupations with collective bargaining. Here's an example of these too-zealous rules:
Under the proposed rules, "A home shall provide its direct-care employees with compensation and benefits necessary to attract and retain a sufficient number of qualified direct-care employees to provide for the protection, health, safety and welfare of residents.''
How will the state measure compliance with this nebulous wage-benefit requirement?
Here's the offending language: "A collective bargaining agreement with direct-care employees of the home resulting from participation of the home in multi-employer collective-bargaining activities ... shall be deemed by the department as sufficient evidence that the home is in compliance with this subrule.''
Yes, this says in effect that the home has met this standard if it is a unionized workplace. If not, presumably the issue is arguable along the lines of what is "necessary to attract and retain sufficient'' employees.
We're also concerned about the financial impact this could have on the state business climate as a whole. Small adult foster-care homes would be particularly at risk, and might not be able to bear extra burdens of state regulation.
Common sense dictates that, when you're in a hole and can't get out, you don't dig the hole deeper. Michigan is in an economic hole. This sort of rules-making, detached from economic reality, is just what the state doesn't need, for it would add expense to an entire industry.
Preferably, the state should moderate its intrusive rules and focus instead on rules that would actually improve life for the home residents.
Failing that, the Senate legislation deserves favorable consideration.
The Jackson Citizen Patriot