...to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical...

- Thomas Jefferson

(09-12) 10:43 PDT DETROIT (AP) -- Peggy Mashke tends to 12 children for 12 hours a day at her home, so she was surprised to get a letter welcoming her to the United Auto Workers union.

"I thought it was a joke," said Mashke, 50, of northern Michigan's Ogemaw County. "I work out of my home. I'm not an auto worker. How can I become a member of the UAW? I didn't get it."

Willing or not, Mashke and 40,000 other at-home providers are members of a labor partnership that represents people across Michigan who watch children from low-income families. Two unions receive 1.15 percent of the state subsidies granted to those providers, or more than $1 million a year.

Mashke has given up about $100 this year, and while she says it's not a huge amount of money, she's among a small group of home-based providers suing in federal court to break free from organized labor.

"It's the principle. It's my constitutional rights," she said.

The plaintiffs claim they were driven into the union and forced to support it financially even though they work at home, are hired by families and are not state employees. In some cases, they are even related to the children in their care.

In 2006, the UAW and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, were formally approved as partners in a union called Child Care Providers Together Michigan. Only 15 percent of the providers cast ballots, but 92 percent were in favor.

The lawsuit, filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, claims that Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, and her administration cleared the way for the union in exchange for valuable political support from the UAW and AFSCME.

I see this as violative of more than just the rights of the day care providers. Because the money which is diverted to the unions ultimately comes from the taxpayers, it essentially forces all taxpayers to pay the unions. It's bad enough when crooked unions contribute to whatever grafting politician does their bidding, but when they're using my money, it's simply an outrage.

The Wall Street Journal had a piece about this unconstitutional scam last year, and it was made clear that because so many things are now subsidized, the idea that receiving subsidies equals being a government employee could spread.

Sherry Loar, who owns a day-care center in Petoskey, Mich., is the lead client in a lawsuit brought against the Department of Human Services in state court by the legal arm of the Michigan-based Mackinac Center, a free-market think tank for whom we work. (Ms. Berry is petitioning to join the suit.) The case is based on the grounds that state law presumes that no one is subject to public-sector bargaining unless state legislation has made them so, and in this case, there is no legislation--only the flimsy interlocal agreement. "I'm not opposed to unions," Ms. Loar says, "everything has a place. But when we enter my door, this is my home."

The larger question, not part of this lawsuit, is whether this sort of unionization violates the U.S. Constitution. The freedom of association clause prevents compulsory unionism except, courts have determined, when it is necessary for "labor peace." But in this case, whom would the day-care providers riot against? The parents?

The federal question may be raised soon, as other states have pursued similar unionization schemes over the past decade, primarily at the behest of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union, better known as the SEIU. Fourteen states have now enabled home-based day-care providers to be organized into public-employee unions, affecting about 233,000 people. And nine have done so with home health-care providers. The idea to unionize in this way was hatched in California, though ironically Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed legislation to unionize child-care providers.

It's the subsidies, of course that provide the foot in the door for the government to engage in this dishonest fiction:

It's telling that in several states that have gone down this road, state and federal subsidies are the source of the union dues. In Michigan, the scheme is essentially throwing a cash lifeline to unions like the UAW, which are hemorrhaging members.

There's another, ironic twist to the story in the Great Lakes state. Last month the Michigan Economic Development Corporation granted a for-profit SEIU subsidiary, the SEIU Member Action Service Center, a $2 million refundable tax credit to locate a new business facility in the state that will provide administrative services for the union and other local labor organizations. The subsidy strikes us as inappropriate because it categorized the SEIU subsidiary as a business and occurred just before the 5,000 member SEIU local 517M granted the state wage concessions. Shamelessly, the SEIU requested the credit because Michigan has high labor costs.

Some states are redefining straightforward terms--a union as a business, an employer as an employee--primarily to aid organized labor. This highlights the need to re-examine public-sector collective bargaining. Shielded from market pressures, public employee unions have driven up taxpayer costs for decades. Now labor leaders are shanghaiing entrepreneurs such as Ms. Berry and Ms. Loar into government unions because their clients receive government aid. Who will be next? Grocers? Landlords? Doctors?

The idea being that we should all have to contribute to the unions so that they can continue to fund the campaigns of those who vote to force us all to contribute to the unions!

Such a scam!

Juan Peron couldn't have done it better.