Praise be, the election is over. Most people can turn to who's coming for Thanksgiving. But some of our neighbors are preoccupied with a very different kind of election still approaching. These neighbors come from all walks of life and political persuasions, and out of fairness they are asking for a do-over. This is their story.
A coalition of parents caring for disabled children called MNPCA.org are attempting to extricate themselves from a union that claims the right to represent them at the State Capitol. These parents have been fighting to protect a wonderful Medicaid program — personal care assistance — they rely on to care for their disabled family member at home. The union is now taking millions out of the program and inserting itself into the private affairs of these families.
MNPCA.org has to first demonstrate that 30 percent of the "bargaining unit" wants a new election by gathering thousands of signatures before Dec. 2. But they do not know how many personal-care assistants (PCAs) are in their union, and they do not have a reliable way to reach them.
If you are confused, you are not alone.
The PCA program, funded by Medicaid, was designed to keep the disabled out of institutions. It was never meant to subject caregivers to unionization. Most PCAs are women caring for a family member, but some are unrelated PCAs.
Under the pretext of helping "low-income health care workers," Gov. Mark Dayton proposed in 2011 that PCAs "organize." Undeterred by objections to what the Star Tribune Editorial Board called, "the legislation's convolution of the traditional worker-employer union model," Dayton won passage of a law that declared PCAs "state employees."
Under that new law, PCAs could only "collectively bargain," but over what? All their benefits come from Medicaid. In recognition of the fact that they are not really "state employees," the law excludes them from such benefits as pensions. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has said they could not be forced to pay union dues because they are not "full-fledged public employees."
The Star Tribune Editorial Board said: "It's fitting that much of the Senate's debate took place in the dark of night. But DFL lawmakers are fooling themselves if they doubt that Minnesotans see this overreaching legislation for what it is: the collection of a campaign IOU by labor interests who worked on the party's behalf in 2012."