state + local

King Dayton must be crushed.

It's a great day for freedom!!

The more lawful ruling would have been to strike down the vote altogether. It has NO STANDING in law. C'mon judge - get with the program.

No one should be forced to join anything they don't want to. In a free society we should be able to pick & choose who we want to associate with. It also seems to me that many people would not be allowed to vote but would be potentially subjected to union membership or rules. Why don't the people that want to form a union do so and leave the rest alone? Why does everyone need to join or no one? Makes no sense. We should always err on the side of freedom and individual choice. On a side note, we should get our government out of the child car business completely. We shouldn't have government paying for child care or regulating it. We simply allow our government to do too much. We mandate "licenses" for many professions when the government has no clue about the professions or how to qualify someone. Most licenses are political tools to protect certain industries and to generate revenue. Some licenses require nothing but a fee, so what's the purpose then? Other licenses require some arbitrary training or experience..... take a private investigator for example, the training required is typically only available to law enforcement and people already in the profession. This is meant to keep others out of the profession. Government does nothing much useful and we need to limit it whenever we can. This union vote is one small example.

Conservatives hate unions, I get that. As the commenter before me, inreality, points out: no one should be forced to join anything they don't want to. No one is being forced to do anything. It is their legal right to vote on the issue, whether to unionize or not. If anyone feels that strongly for or against it, then they are free to campaign, spend money, tell their friends, etc to see that it does or does not pass. You repugs act like Dayton just came up with this issue on his own, since he's a DFLer, leftist, etc who gets all his money from those evil unions. Clearly the issue has been prevalent for some time, he just chose to take a stance on it. It's called leadership. I personally do not care either way of the outcome, but LET THEM VOTE.

But less then half of the child care workers were going to get the privilege to vote. Why? It would, in one or another, affect them all.

"It's called leadership. I personally do not care either way of the outcome, but LET THEM VOTE." Let ALL of them vote. There are over 11,000 day care providers in the state and only 4,000 were allowed to vote.

Really and truly, is there any reason, for a union that seeks to endorse, and is wholly sponsored by a single political party to exist, other than for the purpose of feeding at the taxpayer funded trough?

"I continue to believe that in a democracy people should have rights to elections to determine their own destinies." Mark Dayton But only on issues that will benefit select groups or individuals.

twincitizen1, the child care providers did not want to have a vote and only a small subset of those providers would have been eligible to vote on something that would potentially affect them all. That's why there was never a push by the providers to have a vote. It was Dayton, at the request of the unions, that mandated that there be a got. That's why the providers went to court to block it. It has nothing to do with "repugs" being anti union but more to do with a government that needs to be continually reminded that they overreach.