In 2005, Governor Granholm used her Executive authority to create a shell employer for approximately 43,000 home care aides in Michigan's Home Help program. Instead of organizing and eventually bargaining with the state, SEIU was set to negotiate with this faux employer called the "Michigan Quality Community Care Council" or MQC3.
Shortly after this shell employer was created, a mail ballot election took place. Less than 20% of the eligible voters actually took part in the election. Many claim they never received a ballot and were not informed an election was even taking place. Out of those participating in the election, only 6,900 voted for the union. That means 16% of the home health care providers unionized all 43,000, and 36,100 of them who did not vote for SEIU were stuck paying dues and forced into a mandatory, exclusive relationship with SEIU.
Unfortunately, low voter turnout didn't stop the union from taking over 34.4 million dollars from the home care aides.
The state legislature passed SB 1018 which was promptly signed into law. This bill clarified that merely accepting money from the state did not create an employee/employer relationship and therefore did not justify compulsory unionism.
The SEIU fought back. It sued the state to continue to collect union dues under a hastily negotiated contract signed the same day Governor Snyder signed SB 1018. http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17054
SEIU also collected signatures to have the MQC3 put on the November ballot as a Proposal 4. This would have made the forced unionization part of the Michigan constitution, which would prevent lawmakers from overturning it. It was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
Even some hospital members of SEIU claimed that home care workers did not belong in their union. Luvanda Linebarger, an SEIU Healthcare Michigan union steward, says in the video on the right regarding home-based caregivers who had no idea they were members of her union, "They don’t receive sick time. They don’t get vacation time. They can’t file a grievance ... Is home care needed? Yes it is needed. Should they belong to a union? This union? No. They don't benefit."
The unionization scheme finally ended on February 28, 2013.
In September 2013, the state elections bureau launched a formal investigation into SEIU's financing of two front groups supporting Proposal 4. The complaint accuses SEIU of setting up these front groups in a money laundering scheme to hide its involvement. One of the groups, Home Care First, failed to disclose that all of its money came from SEIU until a week before the November 6, 2012 election. The other group, Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care, received nearly all of its money from Home Care First.
Fair Share Fees: Yes
Health Insurance: NO
Contract: Expired, union no longer recognized